Can one proceed with legal action against a surety where the principal debtor is under business rescue?  A recent judgment considered this question.

Briefly, the facts were that the Plaintiff issued summons against the Defendant based on a suretyship which the Defendant executed, binding himself for the debt of two entities - both of which were in liquidation.

Under the current Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (“Debtor Rehabilitation Act”), even if a debtor’s debt is reduced or exempted when a rehabilitation plan is approved, this does not affect the debt of a guarantor who jointly bears certain obligations with such debtor (“Joint Guarantor”) (Debtor Rehabilitation Act, §250(2)).

The recent Court of Appeal case involving Topland Limited and Smiths News Trading Limited was a salutary lesson about the strict rules that protect guarantors and the perils of forgetting them.  The facts of the case were relatively simple:  Topland owned a commercial property, leased to the rather aptly named Payless DIY Ltd, which became insolvent.  Topland brought a claim against the tenant’s guarantor, Smiths, for arrears of over £280,000 and required them to take a new lease for the remainder of the term.

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.

On February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its much-anticipated decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers et al. (Indalex). This bulletin focuses on pension plan administration issues arising from the Indalex case.

Facts

The Indalex decision, released by the Ontario Court of Appeal earlier this year, gave priority to pension plan members over other secured creditors that had advanced funds to keep Indalex from bankruptcy.  This case came as a surprise to many practitioners and may have far-reaching implications for pension plan administrators and creditors alike.&nbs

Unremitted source deductions are subject to a deemed trust in favour of the Crown under Section 227 of the Income Tax Act (the “ITA”), Section 86 of theEmployment Insurance Act (the “EIA”) and Section 23 of the Canada Pension Plan (the “CPP”). Subsection 227(4) of the ITA creates the trust for income tax deductions and Subsection 227(4.1) creates a super-priority lien in favour of the Crown, in the amount of the trust, over all the debtor’s assets.

2001 ONCA 265 (Released 7 April, 2011)

Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act – Pensions – Priorities – Fiduciary Obligations – Funding Pension Plans

The Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Indalex Limited (Re), 2011 ONCA 265 on April 7, 2011. The decision comes as a surprise to many pension and insolvency professionals, lenders and pension plan sponsors. The court, essentially, directed that monies held in reserve by the monitor appointed under the federal Companies Creditors Arrangement Act should be used to pay off pension fund deficits in preference to secured creditors.

Background

In the Ontario case of Re Xerium Technologies Inc., the Superior Court of Justice (the “Ontario Court”) was asked to recognize an order made by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “U.S. Court”) approving a prepackaged plan of reorganization (the “Plan”) of the debtors, Xerium Technologies Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, “Xerium”), made under Chapter 11 of the United States Code (the “U.S. Bankruptcy Code”).