In the recent decision of Century Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2010 SCC 60, the Supreme Court of Canada has, for the first time, interpreted key provisions of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”).

The judgment of the Court, which was pronounced December 16, 2010, overrules appellate authority from Ontario and British Columbia that previously conferred a priority for unremitted GST on the Crown in CCAA proceedings, and endorses the broad discretionary power of a CCAA court.

On March 22, 2010, in a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a debtor may proceed with an auction sale under a Chapter 11 plan without providing a secured lender the right to credit bid for its collateral.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that bankruptcy trustees, receivers and secured creditors can continue to collect the full amount of accounts receivable of a bankrupt supplier, including the Goods and Services Tax (GST) component, even if an amount remains owing by the supplier to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

The liquidators of Marathon Imaging Limited (Marathon) brought a claim against the company's director, Mr Greenhill, for a prejudicial disposition of property under section 346 of the Property Law Act 2007 and a breach of director's duties under the Companies Act 1993.  Marathon had begun defaulting on its tax commitments from 2008 onwards and became insolvent shortly after.  The Greenhill Family Trust (Trust), a secured creditor of Marathon, appointed receivers and the Commissioner of Inland Revenue had Marathon placed into liquidation just three days later.

Burns & Agnew v Commissioner of the Inland Revenue and Strategic Finance Limited (in rec) concerned a dispute between a secured creditor and the IRD (as a preferential creditor) in respect of certain funds received by the liquidators of Takapuna Procurement Limited (TPL).  The liquidators applied to the High Court for directions as to the application of those funds and this required the Court to undertake an analysis of the concept of an "account receivable" for the purposes of determining whether such funds could be applied to satisfy preferential claims under the Seventh

Fortress Credit Corporation (Australia) II Pty Ltd v Fletcher [2011] FACFC 89 concerned the powers of liquidators in Australia.  In 2009, joint liquidators were appointed to Octaviar Limited (Octaviar) and Octaviar Administration (Funder).  Fortress claimed to be a secured creditor of Octaviar under a charge, and was owed approximately $71 million.  The liquidators arranged for Octaviar and the Funder to enter into funding agreements that provided for the Funder to fund an investigation into the actions of Fortress and to commence litigation against Fortress.

The case of Taylor and Ors v B concerned a company that imported and distributed hair care products, Cabellos Holdings Limited.

The Supreme Court of Victoria has recently given some guidance on when a secured creditor who is entitled to enforce a charge over "the whole, or substantially the whole of the company's property" can validly appoint a company administrator.

Intercreditor agreements--contracts that lay out the respective rights, obligations and priorities of different classes of creditors--play an increasingly important role in corporate finance in light of the continued prevalence of complex capital structures involving various levels of debt. When a company encounters financial difficulties, intercreditor agreements become all the more important, as competing classes of creditors seek to maximize their share of the company's limited assets.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a secured creditor cannot be denied its right to “credit bid”—i.e., to offset the amount of its debt against the purchase price of assets, rather than bidding in cash—in sales of collateral undertaken in connection with plans of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. In so ruling, the Court resolved a widely publicized split of authority among the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and rejected the Third Circuit’s ruling in the Philadelphia Newspapers case.¹