This article was updated on Jan. 9, 2020. 

Q: We've heard about the expiration of the “grandfather clause” (in French, clause grand-père) in the Cape Town Convention, whereby pre-existing rights and interests or their priorities in a State before the effective date of the Cape Town Convention in that State shall not be affected by the Cape Town Convention. We would like to know more details about:

1. Which article in the Cape Town Convention prescribes this rule?

2. Is this rule applicable in Canada?

The Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment (the “Convention”) and theProtocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters specific to Aircraft Equipment (the “Protocol” collectively with the Convention, the “Cape Town Convention”) signed on November 16, 2001 establish a special regime for the protection of certain interests in aircraft objects (within the meaning given to such term in the Cape Town Convention, an “Aircraft Object”), and

The ability to "surcharge" a secured creditor's collateral in bankruptcy is an important resource available to a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor in possession ("DIP"), particularly in cases where there is little or no equity in the estate to pay administrative costs, such as the fees and expenses of estate-retained professionals. However, as demonstrated by a ruling handed down by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the circumstances under which collateral may be surcharged are narrow. In In re Towne, Inc., 2013 BL 232068 (3d Cir. Aug.

Section 506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code contemplates bifurcation of a debtor's obligation to a secured creditor into secured and unsecured claims, depending on the value of the collateral securing the debt. The term "value," however, is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code, and bankruptcy courts vary in their approaches to the meaning of the term. In In re Heritage Highgate, Inc., 679 F.3d 132 (3d Cir.

The ability to sell an asset in bankruptcy free and clear of liens and any other competing “interest” is a well-recognized tool available to a trustee or chapter 11 debtor in possession (“DIP”). Whether the category of “interests” encompassed by that power extends to potential successor liability claims, however, has been the subject of considerable debate in the courts. A New York bankruptcy court recently addressed this controversial issue in Olson v. Frederico (In re Grumman Olson Indus., Inc.), 445 B.R. 243(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011).