The United States District Court for the Central District of California has held that, under California law, claims for restitutionary relief are uninsurable as a matter of law. Dobson v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., et al., 2012 WL 2708392 (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2012). Additionally, the court held that individual insureds breached a policy’s no-voluntary payment provision by settling an underlying claim without insurer consent and that the insureds’ breach was not excused by the carrier’s failure to advance defense costs.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, applying federal law, has held that a Liquidation Trustee and a Litigation Trustee (the Trustees) did not have standing to object to the disbursal of policy proceeds in an insurer’s interpleader action because they had no existing claims or realistic potential claims for coverage under the policy. Federal Insurance Co. v. DBSI, Inc., 2012 WL 2501090 (Bankr. D. Del. June 27, 2012).

In Re Crystallex, 2012 ONCA 404, the Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously upheld unusually broad DIP financing arrangements granted pursuant to section 11.2 of the Canadian Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) despite the vociferous objections of substantially all of Crystallex’s creditors.  By dismissing the appeal, the Court endorsed the supervising CCAA judge’s approval of:

On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 the Supreme Court of Canada heard an appeal of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Re IndalexLimited (“Indalex”). The Indalex decision concerned, among other things, the priority of a deemed trust for certain unpaid pension amounts over the super-priority charge granted in favour of a DIP Lender.

In Re Crystallex, the Ontario Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”) unanimously upheld three orders of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“OSCJ”) that (1) authorized bridge financing, (2) authorized interim financing

Applying Georgia law, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia has voided a surplus lines policy on the grounds that the insured, a purported hedge fund management firm, concealed that it was operating a Ponzi scheme, submitted an inaccurate financial statement, and misrepresented that its investment funds were “stable.”Perkins v. Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 2012 WL 2105908 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Apr. 3, 2012).

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) recently declined to grant a receivership order under section 243 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (“BIA”) and s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act (Ontario) (“CJA”) or to approve a proposed  “quick flip” transaction among related companies on the basis of an insufficient evidentiary record. Insolvency practitioners should take note of this case, 9-Ball Interests Inc. v.

Synopsis

In the latest decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court (the “Court”) regarding the bankruptcy of Ted LeRoy Trucking Ltd. (“TLT”), the Court found that unpaid remittances owed by TLT to third party benefit providers constituted “wages” within the meaning of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA). This entitled the benefit providers to super priority secured status in the bankruptcy of TLT.

The Facts

In the latest decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court (the “Court”) regarding the bankruptcy of Ted LeRoy Trucking Ltd.

On May 24, 2012, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (District Court) issued an opinion with significant ramifications for law firms seeking to hire former partners from bankrupt law firms. At issue was whether, under New York partnership law, the law firms that hired former partners of Coudert Brothers LLP (Coudert), a dissolved and bankrupt law partnership, must account for profits that the former Coudert partners earned while completing work on open client matters they took with them from Coudert.