introduction

On April 7, 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal rendered a decision in the restructuring proceedings involving Indalex Limited (Indalex) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) that is inconsistent with prior non-binding comments by the same court relating to the priority of certain pension claims. The decision has material implications for institutional financiers that lend against the inventory, accounts receivable or cash collateral of businesses with Ontario regulated defined benefit pension plans and for the access of those businesses to secured credit.

In Canada, as in the US, corporate debtors are permitted with court approval to obtain DIP financing on a super-priority basis. The Order typically provides protections as hard as a nutshell, including that pension claims cannot crack the shell of protection and are subordinated to the new DIP loan. A recent Canadian decision, however, held that certain pension claims could crack the nut wide open and should be paid ahead of a DIP loan. Re Indalex Limited, 2011 ONCA 265 (Apr. 7, 2011).

Last month we reported on the overwhelming victory of the Transeastern Lenders in their appeal of the decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida ordering them to disgorge almost $500 million in loan repayments, pre- and post-judgment interest and professional fees (“TOUSA I“1). That update can be found here.

In a 113-page decision issued on February 11 (the "District Court Decision"), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Gold, J.) delivered a blistering rebuke to the Florida Bankruptcy Court (Olson, J.) when it quashed the portions of the famous / infamous 2009 TOUSA decision (the "Trial Decision") holding the so-called "Transeastern Lenders" liable for fraudulent transfers in connection with T

In a 113-page decision issued earlier today, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Gold, J.), quashed the famous / infamous decision of the Florida Bankruptcy Court holding the so-called “Transeastern Lenders” liable for fraudulent transfers in connection with TOUSA’s July 31, 2007 financing transactions (the “July 31 Loans”). In re TOUSA, Inc., Slip Op., Case No. 10-60017-CIV/GOLD (S.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2011).

So what do railroad barons, second lien lenders and satellites have in common? Strangely, the derailment of the gifting doctrine for cram-down plans, at least, in the Second Circuit. In an Opinion filed on February 7, 2011, the Second Circuit issued what amounted to a teaser for bankruptcy professionals. It started with a decision by Bankruptcy Judge Gerber of the Southern District of New York to confirm a Chapter 11 plan that included a “gift” from the second lien lenders to equity, even though unsecured creditors were not being paid in full.

In a recent decision, CML V, LLC v. Bax, et al., C.A. No 5373-VCL (Del. Ch. Nov. 3, 2010), the Delaware Court of Chancery held that, unlike Delaware corporations, creditors of an insolvent Delaware limited liability company cannot bring derivative actions against the members or managers of the company unless they specifically contract for such rights.

On December 16, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) reorganization proceedings, the Crown enjoys no super-priority status in relation to its claims for unremitted sales taxes arising under the Goods and Services Tax (the “GST”) or similar provincial sales taxes.

The Chapter 11 plan for Washington Mutual Inc. (WaMu) took a page from Engelbert Humperdinck’s song book, with numerous third parties crooning Please Release Me, Let Me Go. On January 7, however, Judge Mary F. Walrath of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court denied confirmation of WaMu’s plan, demonstrating both Delaware’s long-standing view that third party releases should rarely be granted and a clear and laudable preference for the Psychedelic Furs’ No Release unless, like Buffalo Springfield, you Pay the Price.