Judge Craig Whitley’s recent transfer of the LTL Management case will bring a high-profile "Texas Two-Step" chapter 11 bankruptcy to New Jersey, and it may open a new chapter in how courts approach the novel transaction designed to isolate and address certain mass-tort liabilities.

In a decision that will likely impact bankruptcy proceedings around the country, the Supreme Court recently denied the petition for writ of certiorari of David Hargreaves, which challenged the equitable mootness doctrine.¹ As a result, the concept of equitable mootness remains anything but moot.

The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA“) proceedings involving Carillion Canada and related entities (collectively, “Carillion Canada”) have been an ongoing area of interest for the construction industry since proceedings began in early 2018.

In Chandos Construction v Deloitte Restructuring, the Supreme Court clarified one aspect of bankruptcy law – the scope and application of the anti-deprivation rule – while leaving an unsettled area of contract law – the penalty doctrine – to be resolved for another day. Here, we consider the implications of the newly-clarified anti-deprivation rule as it applies to the construction industry.

Background

The governmental restrictions and social customs implemented to combat the spread of COVID-19 have led to significant fallout throughout the economy. Many companies, particularly those with significant retail, hospitality, and personal services operations, may become insolvent and may have to consider their options for avoiding bankruptcy. Creditors looking to recover from insolvent companies may find their claims subject to a debtor’s reorganization proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, RSC 1985, c-36 (“CCAA“).

Shortly after the passage of a bill injecting an additional $310 billion into the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program, the SBA has issued another supplemental Interim Final Rule (IFR) providing new guidance on several issues, including eligibility for hedge funds, private equity firms and portfolio companies, and has also answered questions about businesses in bankruptcy proceedings.

On 13 June 2019, the much anticipated DIFC Insolvency Law No. 1 of 2019 and associated DIFC Insolvency Regulations 2019 (collectively the “2019 DIFC Insolvency Law”), came into full force and effect, replacing the DIFC Insolvency Law No. 3 of 2009.

By way of context, the 2019 DIFC Insolvency Law applies only to entities registered and operating within the DIFC.

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court settled a long-standing circuit split regarding the impact of bankruptcy filings on trademark licenses. Until May 20th, brand owners in some jurisdictions could use bankruptcy protections to terminate the rights of third parties to use its licensed trademarks. Now, it is clear that a bankrupt licensor cannot rescind trademark license rights. Licensees can continue to do whatever their trademark licenses authorize, even if the licensor has filed for bankruptcy.

In 2017, the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision that the BIA prevailed over a conflicting provision in the provincial regulations promulgated by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER).

On January 17, 2019, the Fifth Circuit held that a creditor is not impaired for the purpose of voting on a plan if it is the Bankruptcy Code (as opposed to plan treatment) that impairs a creditor’s claim. The court further held that a make-whole premium is a claim for unmatured interest which is not an allowable claim under Bankruptcy Code, absent application of the “solvent-debtor” exception which may or not apply—the issue was remanded to the bankruptcy court for decision.