Changes may be coming to the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions.[1] In 2012 the American Bankruptcy Institute established a Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 (the “ABI Commission”), composed of many well-respected restructuring practitioners, including two of the original drafters of the Bankruptcy Code, whose advice holds great weight in the restructuring community.

Background
Whose fault was it?
Comment

Introduction
Summary
Facts
Supreme Court decision
Comment

Introduction

Introduction
Implications
Facts
Supreme Court decision
Comment

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) recently released its much-anticipated decision in the Indalex Limited (“Indalex”) proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA Proceedings”). The decision is important for secured lenders in the context of an insolvency proceeding (“DIP Lenders”) or outside of an insolvency proceeding (“secured lenders”).

Introduction
Facts
Decision
Dissenting decisions
Comment

Introduction

The outcome of the TOUSA appeal has been much anticipated and closely watched by the lending community, their counsel and advisors, and legal scholars. On May 15, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion (found here), reversing the District Court for the Southern District of Florida and affirming the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, at least insofar as to the bankruptcy court’s factual findings, but not remedies.

Introduction
Facts
Decision

Introduction

In Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. v. Ballyrock ABS CDO 2007-1 Limited (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.), Adv. P. No. 09-01032 (JMP) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2011) [hereinafter “Ballyrock”], the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a contractual provision that subordinates the priority of a termination payment owing under a credit default swap (CDS) to a debtor in bankruptcy, and which caps the amount of the termination payment, may be an unenforceable ipso facto clause under section 541(c)(1)(B).

On April 7, 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) released its decision in Indalex Limited, ordering that the reserved sale proceeds of a going-concern sale involving the Canadian Indalex entities (“Indalex Canada”), held by the court-appointed monitor, FTI Consulting Inc.