On 20 May 2015, the Supreme Court of Appeal (in the matter of African Banking Corporation of Botswana v Kariba Furniture Manufacturers & Others) clarified one of the biggest uncertainties arising out of the business rescue provisions of the Companies Act. The Court has now clarified the meaning of the term “binding offer” in a manner which not only brings clarity to the business rescue regime in general, but also will provide greater comfort to banks and other creditors.
Thanks to a decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia released on June 13, 2013, Court-appointed receivers can now accept appointments with greater confidence that their fees and expenses incurred in passing their accounts are recoverable from the estate - or possibly from a third party who raises opposition, if no assets remain in the estate.
In Re Avant Enterprises Inc.[1], the Supreme Court of British Columbia expressed its reluctance to leave its receiver exposed in respect of costs incurred in the passing of its accounts.
INTRODUCTION
In theory, when liquidating a succession, publication formalities must be observed so that the various creditors can present themselves and claim their due. This formality also gives the successors an overall view of the assets and liabilities of the succession before deciding whether or not to accept it.
On February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers[1]. The ruling:
After reserving judgment for more than a year, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) has released its decision in the matter of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador v. AbitibiBowater Inc., et al [1].
In the recent decision in the CCAA Proceedings of Timminco Ltd. et al.[1], the Ontario Court of Appeal has affirmed the CCAA Court’s jurisdiction to grant super-priority status to DIP financing charges (including over provincial deemed trusts) and, effectively, confirmed that a supervising CCAA Court has a broad discretion to do so.
In a recent decision in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) Proceedings ofTimminco Ltd. et al.[1], Justice Morawetz of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice [Commercial List] observed that the disclaimer provisions of the CCAA apply equally in the context of a restructuring plan and a sales process.
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently addressed the issue of pension deficits in the context of a restructuring under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (the "CCAA"). However, unlike past decisions, in Re Indalex the Court held that such deficits may have priority against monies advanced under interim debtor-in-possession ("DIP") financing agreements authorized by a CCAA judge. This apparent departure from the conventional understanding of the priority of pension deficit claims and related issues should raise concerns for lenders, employers, and plan administrators.
In 2005, Parliament passed a comprehensive package of reforms to Canadian insolvency and restructuring laws. The purpose of these amendments was to provide additional protections for employees, codify existing case law and practice, bolster the proposal process and conform Canadian laws concerning cross-border insolvencies to international practice.
The priorities of some pension claims on bankruptcy and receivership changed as a result of amendments effective July 8, 2008 to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act R.S.C. (Canada) (the “BIA”).
Priority Before the Amendments