Unpaid suppliers are generally unsecured in liquidation proceedings. A supplier can elevate its unsecured claim by taking security from the debtor or modifying its supply contract by inserting an effective title retention clause. The supplier may also rely on the BIA unpaid supplier provision to assert a super-priority for the return of its goods.

In a series of cases in 2009 culminating in the decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Morawetz in Re Indalex Limited (“Indalex”), the CCAA Courts have considered the appropriateness of approving the granting of a guarantee in connection with a cross-border DIP facility. This issue has been at the forefront – with varying results – in a number of recent CCAA cases in which DIP financing was dependent on the CCAA debtor providing a secured guarantee of the obligations of the parent or affiliate company’s DIP financing in its own Chapter 11 case.

In Re ScoZinc Ltd., 2009 NSSC 136 the monitor appointed under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) brought a motion for directions on whether it had the authority to allow the revision of a claim after the claim’s bar date, but before the date set for the monitor to complete its assessment of claims.

GE financed two tractor trailers for Brampton Leasing & Rentals Ltd. (“Debtor”) under conditional sale contracts and perfected its security under the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (“PPSA”).

The Debtor leased the vehicles to lessees, who obtained vehicle insurance from ING. GE was not named as a loss payee by the Debtor or the lessees.

Innovation Credit Union v. Bank of Montreal [2009] S.J. No. 147; 2009 SKCA 35, on appeal from 2007 SKQB 471

October 1991:     Saskatchewan farmer James Buist (“Debtor”) granted a general security agreement to Innovation Credit Union (“CU”). The general security agreement was not perfected under the Saskatchewan Personal Property Security Act (“PPSA”) by registration.

The extraordinary turmoil in the financial markets in recent times has caused many major economies, including the Canadian economy, to enter into a recessionary period. With the financial sector still trying to cope with the shocks of 2007 and 2008, prospects for a full Canadian economic recovery in the near future appear uncertain. Recent decisions by well-established Canadian companies such as Nortel Networks and Masonite International Corporation (a Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.

A recent decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal has rationalized the approach to be taken by Courts in considering appeals in CCAA cases.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench recently permitted a debtor to establish a "hardship" fund to pay obligations incurred prior to the debtor's CCAA filing to local suppliers operating in the debtor’s community.

Retention of key employees is a primary concern of any company that is seeking to survive a restructuring process as a viable operating business. The question is how to ensure that employee retention payments fairly balance the goal of retaining employees who are key to the restructuring against the financial impact on other stakeholders of the implementation of such a program. Beyond that, in the case of a cross-border restructuring, one must be aware of the difference between Canadian and US law on the issue of employee retention.  

Radius Credit Union Limited v. Royal Bank of Canada [2009] S.J. No. 148, 2009 SKCA 36, on appeal from
2007 SKQB 472

1992: Farmer Wayne Hingtgen (“Debtor”) granted a general security agreement to Radius
Credit Union Limited (“CU”) granting a security interest on all his present and after
acquired assets.