The “Indoor Management Rule” is well established in Canadian law. This common law rule holds that parties dealing with a corporation, acting in good faith and without knowledge of any irregularity, are entitled to assume that a corporation’s internal policies and proceedings have been followed and complied with. Some elements of the rule are codified in the various provincial business corporations statutes.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal has overturned the B.C. Supreme Court decision inKBA Canada1, which was reviewed in the September 2012 issue of Fully Secured.

What does the U.S. doctrine of equitable subordination have to do with Canada? Superficially, the answer may be: not much. But for many financing and insolvency professionals here in Canada, there remains a palpable sense that the U.S. doctrine will eventually, if not inevitably, find its way fully across the U.S. border into Canada. So, perhaps the more appropriate response really ought to be: not much, at least not yet! It is because of this anticipation that it is worthwhile, from time to time, to summarize the central aspects of the U.S.

A recent decision of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in Tallgrass¹⁰ clarifies the threshold that a company must meet when it seeks relief pursuant to the CCAA¹¹, particularly when such an application is met with a competing applicati

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.

Shareholders often overlook the need to properly document loan advances in their haste to provide funds to the company, without being aware of the significant consequences that can result.

1. Historical Background

Unlike the United States, Canada was not created by a unilateral declaration of independence from the colonial occupation of England.

In 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Saulnier⁵ that a commercial fishing licence constitutes ‘property’ within the context of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) and the Nova Scotia PPSA⁶, thereby allowing the trustee in bankruptcy to seize the licence from the bankrupt.

In a recent edition of Fully Secured (September 29, 2011 – Volume 2, No. 3), the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Re Indalex Limited was discussed, in which the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a statutory deemed trust claim arising out of a pension plan wind-up deficiency ranked in priority to debtor in possession (“DIP”) financing.

There have been several recent developments with respect to this decision since the date of that publication.