The Third Circuit recently held that a bankruptcy court may confirm a Chapter 11 plan that includes a sale of assets in which secured creditors are not permitted to “credit bid” for the assets. In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, 599 F.3d 298 (3d Cir. 2010). In that case, the debtors in possession, companies that own and operate the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News, moved the bankruptcy court to approve bid procedures for an auction of the debtors’ assets. Id. at 302.

In In re Kohls, 2007 LEXIS 76 (Bankr NDWVa 2007), the debtor filed this adversary proceeding against the Bank to cancel indebtedness and recover damages related to a $34,864 loan that the Bank made to the Debtor on the grounds that the loan was unconscionable at the time it was executed in violation of W. Va. Code § 46A-2-121.

Many bankruptcy practitioners are familiar with the general tenet that an obligation secured only by a mortgage on the Debtor’s principal residence is immune from modification or avoidance by the Debtor. Sections 1123(b)(5) and 1322(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code protect residential mortgages from being “stripped-down” to the value of the subject real estate or subjecting the terms of the underlying obligation to modification.

What should be the remedy when a bankruptcy court holds that a security interest is avoidable as a preferential transfer, but the value of the security interest is not readily ascertainable? The Ninth Circuit recently addressed this issue in USAA Federal Savings Bank v. Thacker (In re: Taylors), 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 5793 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court held that, since the value of the security interest was not readily ascertainable, the only available remedy is for the bankruptcy court to return the security interest itself, not its value, to the bankruptcy estate.

On September 18, 2009, after years of Parliamentary delay dating back to 2005, wide-ranging amendments to Canada’s Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) (the “Amendments”) came into force, providing, among other things, new protections for licensees of intellectual property.

It is important to note that the Amendments only apply in the CCAA restructuring and BIA proposal context, and not to conventional bankruptcies or receiverships.

Directors and officers of corporations are often subject to potential personal liabilities as a result of their positions. This potential for personal liability may be increased in the insolvency context, where a corporation’s creditors will seek to collect on certain debts from alternate sources, such as directors and officers. Directors and officers often utilize insurance and various court mechanisms in order to mitigate their personal liabilities.

On October 30, 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada released its long-anticipated decision in Quebec (Revenue) v. Caisse populaire Desjardins de Montmagny. At issue in this case (and two companion cases) was the legal characterization of Crown rights with respect to collected but unremitted GST and Quebec sales tax (QST) in the hands of a trustee in bankruptcy. The Supreme Court confirmed that the Crown is an ordinary unsecured creditor with respect to such amounts, subject to the rights of prior ranking security holders.

Summary of Facts

The highly publicized announcement by Nortel Networks Corporation (together with its subsidiaries and affiliates, “Nortel”) of its intention to sell certain of its businesses has provided an opportunity for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to settle the state of the law in Ontario (and, hopefully, across Canada) on the sale of all or substantially all of an entity’s assets within a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) proceedings.

Debtor-in-possession financing (“DIP financing”), which is new short-term financing obtained by an insolvent company after the commencement of an insolvency proceeding, is a recurring theme for two primary reasons. First, insolvent companies are generally desperate for an immediate infusion of cash to sustain operations. Second, creditors will usually provide such financing only on a super-priority basis, jumping ahead of existing secured creditors of the insolvent company.

Retention of key employees is a primary concern of any company that is seeking to survive a restructuring process as a viable operating business. The question is how to ensure that employee retention payments fairly balance the goal of retaining employees who are key to the restructuring against the financial impact on other stakeholders of the implementation of such a program. Beyond that, in the case of a cross-border restructuring, one must be aware of the difference between Canadian and US law on the issue of employee retention.