Hello everyone.
Except for a brief addendum to an order made in a criminal matter, the Court of Appeal only released civil law decisions this week, which is rare. Topics covered included whether or not leave to appeal a vesting order made on a receivership sale under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act is required (it is), an ironic case in which a lawyer initially resisted a professional negligence claim for missing a limitation period by arguing the limitation period had been missed (nice try), insurance law and adjournments.
Hello again.
Most of the Court of Appeal civil decisions this week were procedural in nature. Topics included the standard of review of discretionary orders (deference), municipal law, leave to appeal and stays pending appeal in the CCAA context and the consolidation of appeals to the Court of Appeal as of right with Divisional Court appeals requiring leave.
Have a nice weekend.
Table of Contents
Civil Decisions
Pickering (City) v. Slade, 2016 ONCA 133
Hello again for another week,
Sophisticated real estate lenders spend significant amounts of time and energy attempting to insulate themselves from potential bankruptcy filings by their borrowers. A primary reason, which many an experienced real estate lender has found out the hard way, is the risk that a debtor in bankruptcy may “cram down” a plan of reorganization over its lender’s objection. Under a typical cramdown plan, a debtor may stretch out payments to its secured creditor for several years and attempt to replace its negotiated interest rate with a new, below- market rate of interest.
On August 26, 2014, Judge Robert D. Drain of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a bench ruling in In re MPM Silicones, LLC, Case No. 14-22503 (RDD), on several aspects of the plan of reorganization filed by debtor Momentive Performance Materials, Inc., a specialty chemicals manufacturing company, and its affiliated debtors.
The absolute priority rule ordinarily prevents a Chapter 11 debtor from distributing any money or property to junior creditors and old equity investors unless all senior creditors have first been paid in full. See 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii). Nevertheless, old equity investors may attempt to receive new equity in the reorganized debtor in consideration for providing new (post-bankruptcy) investments in the debtor.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in a decision that has implications for borrowers and lenders alike, particularly where pension funds are involved, has raised some new hurdles for the country’s banks and their business customers and, at the same time, has bolstered protection for lenders of last resort who finance insolvent companies.
The court’s decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers, issued earlier this year, addresses critical questions in insolvency law regarding pension funds and DIP financing.
Bankruptcy Code § 1129(a)(10) provides that in order for a plan proponent to “cram down” - i.e., force acceptance of - a plan of reorganization on a dissenting class of creditors, at least one impaired class of creditors must vote in favor of the plan. Because a plan is often not accepted by all classes entitled to vote, the ability to procure at least one impaired, accepting class in order to cram down a dissenting class is essential in achieving plan confirmation.
The Bankruptcy Code provides a number of “safe harbors” for forward contracts and other derivatives. These provisions exempt derivatives from a number of Bankruptcy Code provisions, including portions of the automatic stay,1 restrictions on terminating executory contracts,2 and the method for calculating rejection damages.3 The safe harbor provisions also protect counterparties to certain types of contracts from the avoidance actions created under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code, such as the preference and fraudulent transfer statutes.4
The Issue
The issue is whether the insolvency of a borrower under a non-recourse loan can trigger recourse liability for itself and its “bad boy,” non-recourse carve-out guarantors.