On March 13, 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed applications for leave to appeal by a group of alleged former institutional shareholders of Sino-Forest Corporation. These institutions unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal from orders approving Sino-Forest’s Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) plan and approving a settlement reached between Ernst & Young and the plaintiff group that was awarded carriage of Sino-Forest class actions in Ontario.

Financiers and lenders to Canadian companies have become increasingly concerned about potential priorities of pension claims in Canada over the past year following the 1 February 2013 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in the Indalex case (Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers, 2013 SCC 6). Much of this concern may have been caused by conjecture as to how the SCC's decision would be applied in future insolvency proceedings, rather than the relatively narrow issue that was actually before the SCC in Indalex.

In a closely-watched case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently affirmed the decision of the Delaware District Court, holding that bankruptcy claims are subject to disallowance under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code despite their subsequent sale to a third-party. In In re KB Toys, Inc., No. 13-1197 (3d Cir. Nov.

In connection with the bankruptcy of a bank holding company (the “Bank Holdco”) and its operating bank subsidiary (the “Bank”), there are often different classes of creditors competing for one tax refund.

While newly discovered Element 115 (or “ununpentium” as scientists are temporarily calling it) appears to have vanished quickly in a flash of radiation in front of the eyes of Swedish scientists, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Oklahoma confirmed that make-whole is a well-established stable compound and here to stay.

While the arrival of His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge has dominated the British (and the world) headlines this week, the U.K. Supreme Court delivered its own long awaited bundle of joy earlier today. In the latest decision in the laborious Nortel and Lehman litigations, the U.K. Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision and held that pension claims should not be treated as priority claims and, instead, they should rank equally with general unsecured claims.

Thanks to Anna Nicole Smith and the June 2011 landmark Supreme Court decision in Stern v. Marshall, there are seemingly more questions regarding a bankruptcy judge’s authority to enter final orders (or even proposed orders) than ever before. Those unanswered questions have created considerable uncertainty and, not surprisingly, lengthier and costlier litigation in bankruptcy. Thankfully, the Supremes decided on June 24, 2013 that they will address two of the many questions left unanswered by Stern.

Intellectual property rights are critical to various economic sectors. Many companies depend on licensed technology to operate and survive. The licensor-licensee relationship may deteriorate, especially if the licensor starts showing signs of distress or, even worse, becomes insolvent. Canadian legislation offers some clarity regarding each of the parties' rights and obligations in the event of a licensee's insolvency or bankruptcy.

Navigating the most recent leg in the Quebecor regatta, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court and ruled that prepetition transfers made in connection with a securities contract may qualify for safe harbor from avoidance actions under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code—even if the transferee is a mere “conduit” or “intermediary” financial institution. In re Quebecor World (USA) Inc. (Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Quebecor World (USA) Inc. v. American United Life Insurance Co.), No. 12-4270-bk (2d Cir. June 10, 2013).

The Delaware Bankruptcy Court recently held that a third amendment to a lease agreement entered into for the purpose of leasing a second building could not be severed from the original lease agreement; and the debtor was not allowed to reject the lease on that second building under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.