Given the substantial amount of capital invested in Canadian businesses by American investors a considerable number of trust indenture documents are governed by US law and are “qualified” under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (the “TIA”).
As we reported in our March 2017 bulletin "And then there were none; Ontario has repealed the Bulk Sales Act", the Bulk Sales Act (Ontario) (the “BSA”) was repealed as a result of the coming into force of Schedule 3 of Bill 27, the Burden Reduction Act, 2017.
When a lender makes an interest bearing loan to a borrower for a fixed term, the contract may provide that the borrower cannot repay the principal sum before maturity. This is often referred to as a “no call” provision. The intent of this provision is to protect the lender’s expected return on its investment during the term of the contract. Otherwise, the lender could be faced with the loss of interest payments that the borrower would have otherwise paid to the lender.
On November 17, 2016, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion holding that claims for “make-whole” amounts were valid and enforceable as “redemption premiums” under New York law despite the automatic acceleration of the underlying debt upon the issuer filing for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. See In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., No. 16-1351 (3d Cir. Nov. 17, 2016) (the “EFH Decision”).
On November 16, 2016, the Ontario Ministry of Government and Consumer Services (“MGCS”) posted the Fall 2016 report (the “Report”)[1] of the Business Law Advisory Council (the ”Council”), which was formed by the MGCS in March 2016 to put forward recommendations for modernizing Ontario’s corporate and commercial statutes.
In our previous two news alerts,1 we examined decisions that potentially undermine key elements of the legal structures that lenders created in response to their experiences in the United States Bankruptcy Courts during the real estate downturn of 1988 through 1992, including the involuntary restructure of their indebtedness and liens under the cram-down provisions of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Codeâ€).
The tension between a trustee seeking to facilitate a proposal for the benefit of all creditors and a single creditor being forced to release its rights for the “greater good” was front and center in a recent case before the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
As a service to energy industry participants, the lawyers of the Oilfield Services and Bankruptcy Practices at Haynes and Boone, LLP have been tracking and reporting industry developments in oilfield service restructurings. Our research includes details on 100 bankruptcies filed since the beginning of 2015, including secured and unsecured debt totals for each case. The total amount of aggregate debt administered in oilfield services bankruptcy cases in 2015- 2016 is more than $14 billion and the average debt of these cases exceeds $144 million.
I. Introduction
The enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which ended the many tax shelter advantages previously available to real estate investors, coupled with the savings and loan crises, effectively collapsed the real estate boom of the early-to-mid 1980’s. From 1988 to 1993, countless numbers of real estate loans went into default and many real estate borrowers sought to involuntarily restructure their loans through the “cram-down” provisions of Chapter 11 under title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”).