If Peter Morton and Cinitel Corp. had their way, every lender would have a distinct duty to a guarantor to permit the sale of a defaulting borrower’s assets as a going concern. In their view, a lender should be required to maximize its recovery from the borrower and to minimize any claim made on a guarantee. Fulfilling that duty would also obligate a lender to keep funding a borrower while that asset sale was negotiated and completed. It is enough to make any lender cringe.

Fortunately, the Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed with Morton and Cinitel’s view of the lending world.

In an earlier edition of Fully Secured (June 27, 2012 – Volume 3, Number 2), we reported on the Ontario Court of Justice decision in Snoek ⁷ where security granted by a borrower (“HSLP”) to a group of individual creditors (“B”) was held to constitute an improper preference and declared invalid following a challenge by the trustee in bankruptcy. B had been one victim of a Ponzi scheme involving numerous unsecured creditors of HSLP.

In recent years, manufacturers and lessors of heavy industrial equipment have installed sophisticated systems into their units which require a computer code be entered in order for the equipment to operate. This computer code may need to be updated or changed periodically. If the purchaser or lessee is in arrears in making payment to the manufacturer or lessor, the manufacturer or lessor may refuse to supply the debtor with the new access code. In effect, the manufacturer or lessor has the ability to remotely render the equipment unusable.

Section 8 of the Interest Act (Canada) (the Act) was considered by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Grant Forest Products Inc. (Re) in the context of an inter-creditor dispute.

What role does business common sense play in the interpretation of commercial contracts? This issue was recently addressed by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Rainy Sky S.A. v. Kookmin Bank. The answer: “where a term of a contract is open to more than one interpretation, it is generally appropriate to adopt the interpretation which is most consistent with business common sense”. Since there is currently some uncertainty in Canada on the point, Rainy Sky is an important case to consider.

Decision

Having enforceable security over all of a borrower’s assets is obviously of primary importance to a lender.  However, where a borrower occupies leased premises, ensuring the lender has quick and reliable access to the collateral is equally important, especially if the landlord proves to be unco-operative after a borrower’s default.  Although court-ordered access to a borrower’s leased premises can be sought after a borrower’s loan default, a landlord waiver obtained prior to an initial advance of a loan can bring some added certainty to the realization process outside of a bankrup

Last month, I appeared before the federal government’s Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to convey our concerns regarding Bill C-501,An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and other Acts (pension protection), which if passed will alter the status of

On October 26, 2010, the British Columbia Court of Appeal (the Court) released its decision in Canadian Petcetera Limited Partnership v. 2876 R Holdings Ltd., 2010 BCCA 469 (Petcetera), an important case that addresses the rights of landlords when a tenant has filed a Notice of Intention to make a proposal (NOI) under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the BIA).

formal proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) is a powerful alternative to bankruptcy. The benefits of a proposal for the debtor are clear: the debtor reduces its debt load and avoids bankruptcy. However, proposals are also beneficial to creditors since generally the creditor’s recovery in a proposal scenario is better than the potential recovery from a liquidation through a bankruptcy. In simple terms, upon the successful completion of a proposal, the debtor gets a “fresh start” and creditors recover more than they would in a bankruptcy.

If you intend to enforce a judgement in Canada, you should know that the question of the US Court’s jurisdiction will likely be determined by the Canadian Court enforcing the judgement using its own test. The grounds on which the US Court took jurisdiction will carry little weight in the eyes of the Canadian enforcing Court.