In the recent decision in Re Xerium Technologies Inc.1, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recognized an order made by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware that confirmed the debtor’s pre-packaged Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. The decision provides useful guidance on how the Ontario Court may consider similar applications in the future. Many will take comfort from the fact that the decision revisits a number of relevant factors established in case law that pre-dates the current formulation of the cross-border provisions that make up Part IV of the CCA A.

In Capital One v. Solehdin,1 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recognized judgments of a Louisiana bankruptcy court and held that they were enforceable in Ontario. The judgments were summary judgments against guarantors under their respective guarantees. The decision is significant – it is one of the first cases where guarantors challenged the recognition and enforcement of such judgments of a foreign bankruptcy court on the basis that the foreign bankruptcy court lacked the jurisdiction to grant the judgments.

If you intend to enforce a judgement in Canada, you should know that the question of the US Court’s jurisdiction will likely be determined by the Canadian Court enforcing the judgement using its own test. The grounds on which the US Court took jurisdiction will carry little weight in the eyes of the Canadian enforcing Court.

That darn Lehman Brothers bankruptcy sure is raising some interesting insolvency issues for derivatives market participants (and their lawyers of course). It’s interesting (at least for us insolvency nerds) to think about how some of those issues might play out under Canadian insolvency laws. Here are some thoughts on one of the recent cases with my Canadian spin.

On March 22, 2010, the Superior Court of Quebec approved a plan of arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act (the CBCA) that allowed a corporation, MEGA Brands Inc., to achieve a worldwide restructuring of its business under a corporate statute, rather than a more typical insolvency and restructuring statute like the Companies Creditors’ Arrangement Act.

On October 13, 2009, a U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Florida issued an opinion invalidating, under U.S. fraudulent conveyance law, guaranties and security interests given by certain subsidiaries to secure the $200 million first lien and $300 million second lien credit facilities made to the subsidiaries’ parent corporation, TOUSA, Inc. (In re TOUSA, Inc., 2009 WL 3519403, at *1 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2009).

Nortel

Nortel Networks (“Nortel”) brought a motion seeking approval of the sale of various Nortel assets to Nokia Siemens (“Asset Sale Agreement”), and for approval of a Sale Agreement and Bidding Procedures, advanced by Nortel for the purpose of conducting a “stalking horse” bidding process in respect of its Code Division Multiple Access (“CDMA”) and Long-Term Evolution Access (“LTE”) assets. As of the date of the motion, Nortel had yet to propose a formal plan of compromise or arrangement.

In the recent case of Re Masonite International Inc., the Ontario Superior Court approved a plan of arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act (“CBCA”), notwithstanding that certain insolvent entities were involved. This was a short but complex cross-border restructuring which commenced and was principally completed prior to the recent Canadian insolvency legislation amendments coming into force.

Courts have broad discretion to grant orders under s. 18.6 of the CCAA in cases where there is no formal Canadian bankruptcy filing.

Magna Entertainment Corp. (“MEC”) is a publicly-traded Delaware corporation with its head office in Ontario. On March 5, 2009, MEC and certain of its U.S. subsidiaries filed for Chapter 11 protection in the United States. Although MEC’s management is based in Canada and MEC has assets in Canada, MEC’s main interests and majority presence are in the U.S.