A recent unpublished decision, Strunck v. Figueroa, serves as a not-so-gentle reminder that sometimes an enforcement application can be “too little, too late,” and that it is imperative to be proactive to protect your rights under a divorce decree or agreement, especially when your adversary acts in bad faith. In Strunck, a 2011 divorce decree awarded the plaintiff $23,369, which was to be transferred from the defendant’s retirement account. Before the plaintiff could act to collect the $23,369, however, the defendant withdrew the money from the retirement account.
Because no recent opinions have been published by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, I wanted to touch on a subject that is vital in nearly every preference or fraudulent transfer case: The Statute of Limitations For A Preference Claim
A. Statute of Limitations
On May 1, 2016, BIND Therapeutics, Inc., and affiliated companies (“Debtors” or “BIND”) voluntarily filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
The filing comes days after the Cambridge, Mass., company received a notice of default from lender Hercules Technology III LP, which demanded immediate payment of the $14.5 million the lender says it is owed under the loan. The Company is backed by Koch Industry Inc.’s David Koch.
– But they weren’t as oppressive as my subject line may imply.
In a 13 page decision, released April 22, 2016, Judge Gross of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court granted a motion to dismiss an adversary proceeding and sanctioned the Plaintiff – disallowing any further litigation against the defendants in the Bankruptcy Court. Judge Gross’ opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).
Recently in the Abengoa SA bankruptcy proceeding (click here to review prior post), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware entered an order permitting Debtors to reject certain nonresidential real property leases (the “Rejection Order”).
On February 29, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released a decision in the ongoing insolvency proceeding of U. S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC). Two principal issues were addressed by the Court. First, whether amounts advanced by United States Steel Corporation (USS) to USSC (its indirect wholly-owned subsidiary) were properly characterized as debt obligations or “equity claims” under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA).
Le 29 février 2016, la Cour supérieure de justice de l’Ontario (la « Cour ») a rendu une décision dans le cadre de la procédure d’insolvabilité en instance d’Acier U. S. Canada Inc. (« USSC »). Dans cette affaire, la Cour s’est penchée sur deux grandes questions.
UN | PÉTROLE ET GAZ
PENSION ADMINISTRATION
York (Police Services Board) v. York Regional Police Association, 2015 CanLII 62103 (ON LA)
Grant Forest Products Inc. v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2015 ONCA 570