The Supreme Court of Canada released its highly anticipated decision in Indalex Limited (Re) this morning. The ruling stemmed from an appeal of an Ontario Court of Appeal decision that had created commercial uncertainty among many participants in the financial services, pensions and restructuring industries.
This is another post-Indalex pension deficit priority case. Due to factual differences from Indalex, however, the pension claims were largely rejected.
DRI- The Voice of the Defense Bar
The ability of secured creditors to credit bid in sales conducted under bankruptcy plans of reorganization is an important right that protects them against low bids from rival purchasers. A secured creditor is typically permitted to offset, or bid, its secured allowed claim against the purchase price in a sale of collateral conducted under section 363(b) of the United States Bankruptcy Code.
Companies restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) depend on a supply of critical products and services in order to continue operations during the proceedings. An interruption in the supply of such goods and services would likely be fatal to any restructuring. Prior to 2009, the CCAA was silent about how the post-filing supply of such goods and services was to be obtained. The CCAA provided only that a supplier could not be forced to supply on credit.
Commercial real estate foreclosures present a number of significant challenges to lenders, special servicers and their counsel that residential foreclosures do not. But residential foreclosures make up the vast majority of state courts’ foreclosure dockets, so the court system – including Judges and Master Commissioners – is often unfamiliar of the challenges associated with commercial foreclosures. This can result in delays, unnecessary expense and the associated frustration that invariably follows when a commercial real estate asset is tied up in Court.
On March 3, 2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released its decision in Dodd v. Prime Restaurants of Canada Inc. (2012 ONSC 1578). The decision acts as a caution to franchisors to ensure their franchisees are fully informed and properly advised prior to entering into settlement agreements. Without such steps, franchisors may find releases rendered ineffective against subsequent statutory claims by the application of section 11 of the Arthur Wishart Act (the Act).
Background
The law in Canada concerning priorities between the statutory deemed trusts relating to pension plan contributions and certain pension fund shortfalls on the one hand, and court ordered charges in favour of DIP lenders on the other hand has been in a state of flux ever since the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) in Re Indalex.
This article provides an analysis of whether a licensee retains the right to use trademarks following rejection of an intellectual property license. The analysis centers on Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code as well as a recent 7th Circuit opinion interpreting the applicability of that provision to trademarks. In short, while there does not appear to be unanimity among the Circuits, there is growing authority for the proposition that the right to use trademarks does not necessarily terminate upon rejection of the license.
The Indiana Court of Appeals recently interpreted an ambiguous subordination agreement, finding the subordinated creditor was entitled to the appointment of a receiver over the mortgaged property. PNC Bank, National Association v. LA Develop., Inc., --- N.E.2d ---, No. 41A01-107-MF-314, 2012 WL 3156539 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug.