On March 26, 2020, leave to appeal the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal (the “Alberta CA”) in Canada v. Canada North Group Inc.¹ (“Canada North Group”) was granted by the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”).² No reasons were given.

On March 6, 2020, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) released its decision in Royal Bank of Canada v. Bodanis (“Bodanis”),¹ holding that two debtors, each having an estate exceeding $10,000 in value, had appeals of their bankruptcy orders as of right under section 193 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act²(the “BIA”) and thus did not need to seek leave to appeal.

Section 193 reads as follows:

Confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan generally requires the consent of each impaired class of creditors. A debtor can “cramdown” a plan over creditor dissent, however, as long as at least one class of impaired claims accepts the plan.

On December 30, 2019, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (the “NLSC”) released its decision in Re Norcon Marine Services Ltd.¹ (“Norcon Marine”), dismissing both an application by a debtor for continuance of its Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act² (“BIA”) proposal proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act³ (“CCAA”) and a competing application by a secured creditor for the appointment of a receiver.

On October 10, 2019, the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the “BCSC” or the “Court”) released its decision in 8640025 Canada Inc. (Re)¹ (“8640025 Canada”), denying an application to replace the monitor (the “Monitor”) in a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act² (the "CCAA") proceeding because the applicant was not a creditor and therefore had no standing to bring such an application.

On January 29, 2020, the Alberta Court of Appeal (the “Alberta CA”) released its decision in PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. v Perpetual Energy Inc.¹ (“Perpetual Energy”), granting applications requiring a trustee in bankruptcy (the “Trustee”) to post security for costs on appeals brought by the Trustee.

In 7636156 Canada Inc. v. OMERS Realty Corporation¹ (“7636156 v. OMERS”), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) held that a bankrupt’s landlord was only entitled to have drawn down on a letter of credit by an amount equal to the landlord’s priority claim for three months’ accelerated rent, rather than by the full amount of the letter of credit, and ordered that the landlord pay over the excess to the bankrupt’s trustee.

The consequences of an order or judgement being final or interlocutory are enormous. An order from an interlocutory order requires leave since these orders are not appealable as of right. In addition, a failure to obtain leave may result in the issue becoming moot. This is especially so when motions to lift the stay are involved: if the motion is denied and is not immediately appealable, by the time the case is concluded, the issues will most likely be moot.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently held in In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, No. 13-3992-cv (L) (2d Cir., Dec. 19, 2019) that Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e) barred claims seeking to avoid payments made by Tribune to its shareholders as part of a leveraged buyout (LBO).

Yes, says the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit recently held that the Bankruptcy Court has the authority to confirm a chapter 11 plan which contains nonconsensual, third-party releases when such releases are integral to the successful reorganization. The court’s decision in In re Millennium holds that, when the third-party releases are integral to the restructuring of the debtor-creditor relationship, the Bankruptcy Court has the constitutional authority to approve nonconsensual, third-party releases.

Background