The Fourth Schedule of the Insolvency Act is amended to amend priority in which preferential creditors have to be paid.

Under the Fourth Schedule of the Insolvency Act (the “IA”), unpaid wages and salaries, up to a maximum of Rs 50,000, must now be paid after the liquidator or Official Receiver has settled the cost of the liquidator under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph of the Fourth Schedule.

Hogan Lovells Publications | 01 April 2020

Analysis of the Royal Decree-Law 11/2020 of 31 March, which adopts additional urgent measures in the social and economic field to address the COVID-19 crisis

Following the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 271 (Indalex), creditors and their advisors have been closely following jurisprudence which considers the scope of the decision.

On August 7, 2015, the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) released its decision in Grant Forest Products Inc. v.

Nortel Networks Corporation (Re), 2015 ONSC 2987

TORONTO (May 15, 2015) - On May 12, 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and U.S. Bankruptcy Court delivered an unprecedented joint ruling in the multi-jurisdictional dispute over the allocation of US$7.3-billion raised from the sale of the Nortel Networks global business units and patent portfolio.

At dispute was how to divide Nortel’s estate between bondholders, pensioners, suppliers and former employees of the parent company in Canada and its U.S. and European subsidiaries.

Around 33,000 UK-based pensioners of the Nortel group  look set to receive a greater share of the group’s $7bn worldwide assets, following a joint allocation hearing in the US and Canadian courts. This should mitigate earlier difficulties encountered in trying to use the Pensions Regulator’s anti- avoidance powers to recover monies from non-UK companies.

The decision may also have wider implications for unsecured lenders to a company which is part of a multi-jurisdictional group headquartered in the US or Canada.

WHAT WAS THE BACKGROUND TO THIS?

It’s been almost two years since the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision in Indalex Ltd., Re.1 Currently, Canada’s lower courts are being challenged to interpret the decision in a variety of different contexts. The purpose of this article is to review the Indalex decision within the broader context of pre- and post-Indalex case law and to briefly comment on its impact in the lending marketplace. 

Enhancing lender priority over pension deficiencies in Canada in the post Indalex era - more guidance from the courts
Three recent cases address open issues from the 2013 Indalex decision and point the way to strategies to limit financier exposure to pension deficiency priority

Financiers and lenders to Canadian companies have become increasingly concerned about potential priorities of pension claims in Canada over the past year following the 1 February 2013 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in the Indalex case (Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers, 2013 SCC 6). Much of this concern may have been caused by conjecture as to how the SCC's decision would be applied in future insolvency proceedings, rather than the relatively narrow issue that was actually before the SCC in Indalex.