Judge Drain’s recent bench rulings in Momentive Performance Materials in 2014 generated a great deal of controversy in the distressed debt world.  Distressed investors, lenders, and commentators have questioned whether the Momentive rulings will lead to an industry trend in which debtors seek to cram down their secured lenders to take advantage of the ability to do so at below market interest rates.  

2014 has been a tumultuous year, filled with tragedy and interstellar triumphs: Ebola; Sochi; Ukraine; Flight 370; ISIS; Flight 17; Comet 67P. Life in the corporate bankruptcy and restructuring world was considerably more sedate than in the world at large. Now five and six years removed, some of the mega cases of the 2008 and 2009 era linger on and continue to generate interesting legal developments. 

“Life is not about perfect information. Life is about choices, which is why you have elections.”

We previously covered the Meridian Sunrise Village case on the Bankruptcy Blog here.

On August 26, 2014, Judge Drain concluded the confirmation hearing in Momentive Performance Materials and issued several bench rulings on cramdown interest rates, the availability of a make-whole premium, third party releases, and the extent of the subordination of senior subordinated noteholders.

On August 26, 2014, Judge Drain, of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, concluded the confirmation hearing in Momentive Performance Materials and issued several bench rulings on cramdown interest rates, the availability of a make-whole premium, third party releases, and the extent of the subordination of senior subordinated noteholders. This four-part Bankruptcy Blog series will examine Judge Drain’s rulings in detail, with Part I of this series providing you with a primer on cramdown in the secured creditor context.

In April 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal rendered a unanimous judgment in Re Indalex Limited which ordered that the amount the debtor was required to contribute towards its pension plan wind up deficiency be paid in higher priority to repayments to its DIP lender. This judgment was a surprise to the legal community. Leave to appeal has since been granted by the Supreme Court of Canada. In November 2011, groups of White Birch employees and retirees (referred to below as employees) filed motions seeking the application of the legal findings of Indalex to White Birch.

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 September 18, 2009, the Federal Government proclaimed into force the remaining amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and theCompanies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). (A few provisions which are rendered moot, presumably deemed unnecessary or are amendments intended to coordinate the inter-governmental flow of information have not been proclaimed into force.) Some of the key changes to the BIA and the CCAA which we anticipate will considerably impact current Canadian insolvency practice are discussed below.

Canada’s insolvency and restructuring regime consists primarily of two separate statutes that have been substantially amended in recent years to align their restructuring provisions. Despite some similarities with its U.S. counterpart, the amended Canadian regime remains distinct.