In general, substantive consolidation allows for the assets and liabilities of affiliated debtor entities to be consolidated and disbursed as if the assets were held and the liabilities were owed by a single legal entity. Unlike joint administration, which promotes procedural convenience and efficiency without affecting the substantive rights of creditors, substantive consolidation can force creditors of a solvent debtor to share in the debtors’ aggregate asset pool in parity with creditors of less solvent debtors.

Introduction

On April 26, 2011, the Supreme Court approved a number of amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. In particular, the Supreme Court amended Bankruptcy Rule 2019 to clarify the disclosure required of certain parties in interest in a chapter 9 or 11 bankruptcy case.1 These amendments were drafted by a panel of bankruptcy judges and restructuring experts and are intended to resolve a split in decisions concerning the proper application of the current Bankruptcy Rule 2019.

Under the laws of the UK and Bermuda, solvent insurance companies that had ceased to write new policies have long been able to implement an orderly and expeditious run off of their businesses through court approved schemes of arrangement.

The Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Indalex Limited (Re) has created considerable uncertainty over the priority status afforded to pension plan wind-up deficits, particularly in insolvency proceedings involving the plan sponsor.

Certain provisions of Bill C-9, last year's Budget Bill, which amended the federal Pension Benefits Standards Act (PBSA), have been proclaimed in force.

On April 7, 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its long-awaited decision in Re Indalex Limited 1. In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dated February 18, 2010, and allowed the appeals of the United Steelworkers and a certain group of retired executives. The Court of Appeal ordered FTI Consulting Canada ULC (the Monitor) to pay from the reserve fund (the Reserve Fund) held by the Monitor from the sale of Indalex Limited, Indalex Holdings (B.C.) Ltd., 6326765 Canada Inc. and Novar Inc.

On February 22, 2011, Judge James M. Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision declining to modify the September 20, 2008 Sale Order that approved the sale to Barclays PLC (“Barclays”) of assets collectively comprising the bulk of the North American investment banking and capital markets business of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”), Lehman Brothers Inc. (“LBI”) and certain of their affiliates (together “Lehman”).

A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal illustrates that secured creditors should address their priority position relative to all other creditors of their borrower in order to achieve a complete subordination of competing security. Failure to do so in this case resulted in circular priorities that the Court was left to resolve. In light of the Court of Appeal’s decision, secured creditors should ensure they are a party to all subordination agreements with the debtor in order to achieve their expected result.

The Facts and Agreements

The short answer to the title question is “no.” However, under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank” or the “Act”), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) has limited “back-up” authority to place into liquidation an insurance company that (i) meets certain criteria as respects the nature of its business and (ii) is essentially “too big to fail.” This liquidation proceeding would, however, still be under the relevant state insurance liquidation laws.1