The Supreme Court of Canada decision in Century Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), which arose from the restructuring proceedings of Ted LeRoy Trucking Ltd. and was released on December 6, 2010, is a landmark decision in Canadian insolvency law.

Recently, some bankruptcy courts in Ohio have given mortgage lenders something new to be concerned over: Is the form of your notary’s certification proper? Everyone in the mortgage industry is aware of the wave of cases challenging the validity or effectiveness of certain mortgages or mortgage assignments on account of sub-standard execution, notarization and recordation practices.

In a client update released earlier this month, we discussed the recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in the CCAA proceedings of Indalex Limited. In that case, the Court decided that Indalex’s pension plan wind-up deficiency claims had priority over Indalex’s CCAA secured lender in the context of that case. Of concern is the "chill" that decision may have on secured lending in Ontario to borrowers that sponsor defined benefit pension plans.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Kentucky recently found that a vendor’s filing of a prepetition notice of lis pendens served to place any hypothetical judicial lien creditor, execution creditor, or purchaser of real property on notice of its equitable lien against the property for the unpaid portion of the purchase price. This prepetition notice of lis pendens prevented the debtors-in-possession from avoiding the vendor’s lien in exercise of their strong-arm powers under 11 U.S.C. § 544.

In Hardesty v. CitiFinancial, Inc.,1 the Sixth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s denial of the trustee’s request to avoid the debtors’ mortgages with the creditor based on allegedly defective certificates of acknowledgement in the mortgage documents under Ohio law.

This week, the Ontario Court of Appeal surprised many by deciding that in the context of the CCAA proceedings of Indalex, pension plan deficiency claims can have priority over security held by secured DIP lenders. The Court granted priority for the entire wind-up deficiency of two pension plans over the DIP lender’s security. If not reversed on appeal, the ruling creates a potential worst case scenario for secured lenders in Ontario and could affect availability of credit for all employers who provide defined benefit pension plans for their employees.

The Indiana Lawyer Announced on March 31, 2011, that the Fair Finance Co.’s bankruptcy trustee had reached a $371,000 settlement with an Indianapolis attorney who was accused of defaulting on a 2003 loan from the business. The trustee had sued the Indiana attorney and his wife, saying that the couple failed to pay off a $250,000 loan that matured in 2006. Accrued interest had raised the amount owed to over $370,000.

A Cuyahoga County, Ohio trial court did not abuse its discretion when it appointed a receiver for a “defunct” foreign corporation that the trial court found “persists for the purpose of winding up its affairs in Ohio.”In re: All Cases against Sager Corporation (2010), 188 Ohio App 3d 796, appeal accepted for review (2011), 127 Ohio St. 3d 1503. The Court of Appeals found it undisputed that corporate assets existed after the foreign corporation had been dissolved, “and that these assets may afford insurance coverage to Ohioans injured by exposure to Sager’s products”.

On December 23, 2010, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the 6th Circuit, upheld the Eastern District of Kentucky’s Bankruptcy Court’s order that post petition rents, revenues or other funds derived from leased real property is property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. §541 and can be used as cash collateral under 11 U.S.C. §363. However, post petition rents can be used as cash collateral only if the debtor can provide adequate protection for the use of those rents through an existing equity cushion in the property.

In Ransom v. FIA Card Servs., N.A., --- S.Ct. ----, 2011 WL 66438 (U.S. 2011), the United States Supreme Court took up the question of whether a Chapter 13 debtor who owns his or her vehicle outright (“free and clear”) may claim an allowance for car ownership costs and thereby reduce the amount that he or she will repay creditors. In her first opinion, Justice Kagan answered simply—no. The Ransom opinion has been seen as a victory for not only credit card companies like the one involved but other creditors, as well.