The Third Circuit in In re KB Toys, Inc.1 recently affirmed a decision of the Delaware District Court, holding that trade claims are subject to disallowance under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code despite their subsequent sale to a third party. This case is of particular interest to investors in distressed debt.
The Status of Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 and Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act Deemed Trust Claims in Insolvency1
In the 2012 decision of SWP Industries Inc., Re, Justice McLellan of the Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick (the “Court”) declined to lift the stay of proceedings one week in advance of its expiry, despite the assertion of material prejudice advanced by Bank of Nova Scotia (“BNS”).
It has long been standard practice for Court-appointed receivers, monitors and trustees in bankruptcy to include comprehensive disclaimer language in the reports they submit to Court in connection with insolvency proceedings. The reason is simple – these reports are relied on by the Court and other parties to the proceedings, and are often prepared using unaudited and unverified information obtained from management of the debtor company.
On April 2, 2013, Justice Mesbur of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) granted an application brought by Business Development Bank of Canada (“BDC”) for the appointment of a receiver over the assets, undertakings and properties of Pine Tree Resort Inc. and 1212360 Ontario Limited, operating as the Delawana Inn in Honey Harbour, Ontario (together, “Delawana”).
On February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) released its long-awaited decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steel Workers1 (“Indalex”). By a five to two majority, the SCC allowed the appeal from the 2011 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) which had created so much uncertainty about the relative priorities of debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) lending charges and pension claims in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) proceedings.
The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act1 (the “CCAA”) is by far the most flexible Canadian law under which a corporation can restructure its business. When compared against theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act2 (the “BIA”), the CCAA looks like a blank canvass and lends itself well to invention and mutual compromise.
On April 9, 2013, Ambac Financial Group, Inc. (“Ambac”) submitted a proposed settlement with the United States to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. If approved, the proposed settlement would resolve more than two years of litigation concerning the tax treatment of losses sustained by Ambac in connection with credit default swap contracts entered into during the 2008 financial crisis. The settlement would result in a payment by Ambac to the Government of $101.9 million, as well as possible future additional payments of up to $14.9 million.
In another recent private letter ruling,19 the IRS ruled that an ownership change pursuant to a bankruptcy reorganization plan qualified for an exception to the general rule limiting net operating loss ("NOL") carryforwards under Section 382(a).
On February 1, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) released its long-awaited decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steel Workers. By a five to two majority, the SCC allowed the appeal from the 2011 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) which had created so much uncertainty about the priority of pension claims in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) proceedings.