In an apparent case of first impression in Massachusetts, the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts recently held that an allonge must be physically affixed to the original promissory note to be effective.

In May of 2010, we reported on the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Ted Leroy Trucking v. Century Services Inc. In that decision, the Court of Appeal upheld a decision of the B.C.

Generally speaking, Massachusetts is a non-judicial foreclosure state – meaning that lenders can foreclose on mortgages of Massachusetts property without seeking judicial approval beforehand. In certain circumstances, however, a pre-foreclosure judicial proceeding is required solely to determine whether the borrower is in the active military service and entitled to the protections of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. §532.

Last month, I appeared before the federal government’s Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to convey our concerns regarding Bill C-501,An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and other Acts (pension protection), which if passed will alter the status of

Section 38 of the Ontario Personal Property Security Act (the "Act") contains an exception to the general priority scheme of the Act. It provides that a secured creditor may, in the relevant security agreement or otherwise, subordinate its security interest to any other security interest, and that such subordination will be effective according to its terms. No distinction is drawn between perfected and unperfected security interests.

A Massachusetts trial court has denied a borrower’s request to stop a foreclosure proceeding despite the borrower’s claim that the loan was “unfair” under the Massachusetts consumer protection law, Chapter 93A of the General Laws. In its May 13 decision denying the borrower’s request for an injunction, the court examined a stated income (no documentation) loan and determined that the borrower was not likely to prevail on a claim that the loan featured a combination of four characteristics that qualify as “unfair” under Chapter 93A.

On March 22, 2010, the Superior Court of Quebec approved a plan of arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act (the CBCA) that allowed a corporation, MEGA Brands Inc., to achieve a worldwide restructuring of its business under a corporate statute, rather than a more typical insolvency and restructuring statute like the Companies Creditors’ Arrangement Act.

With a number of Canadian companies seeking bankruptcy protection over the past few months, it has become apparent that the defined benefit pension plans sponsored by many of these companies are underfunded. As retirees and former employees protest their shrinking pensions, many are left asking how this all happened.

On September 18, 2009, the Federal Government proclaimed into force the remaining amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and theCompanies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). (A few provisions which are rendered moot, presumably deemed unnecessary or are amendments intended to coordinate the inter-governmental flow of information have not been proclaimed into force.) Some of the key changes to the BIA and the CCAA which we anticipate will considerably impact current Canadian insolvency practice are discussed below.

Canada’s insolvency and restructuring regime consists primarily of two separate statutes that have been substantially amended in recent years to align their restructuring provisions. Despite some similarities with its U.S. counterpart, the amended Canadian regime remains distinct.