As the American economy continues to slog through the ongoing Great Recession, even financially sound companies face challenges due to the continued economic malaise. In particular, a company that works with suppliers, customers and other business partners facing financial troubles needs to be prepared to handle the consequences of others' fiscal problems. Being attuned to signs of distress and taking defensive actions early can help strong companies avoid problems and be better positioned in the case of a significant event, such as a business partner filing for bankruptcy.

Can an equity investor who directs an insider to contribute "new value" to a debtor under a plan of reorganization, so as to retain his interest in the company, avoid an express market test for that new equity? The answer to that question is a resounding "no," according to Chief Judge Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in In re Castleton Plaza, LP, Case No. 12 Civ. 2639, 2013 WL 537269 (7th Cir. Feb. 14, 2013).

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.

In October 2012, The Futura Loyalty Group Inc. (“Futura”) commenced proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”). On November 13, 2012, Justice Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) considered Futura’s request to permit pre-filing, prepayment obligations to its key customers.

Is a bankrupt pledgor legally bound to fulfill its promise to pledge a gift; or will a nonprofit have a successful claim against a pledgor if there is a subsequent failure to make payment because of a bankruptcy filing? A district court in Arizona recently held that St. Joseph's, a nonprofit hospital, did not have an enforceable claim in Bashas' Inc.'s bankruptcy for Bashas' $50,000 charitable pledge because of Bashas' bankruptcy. In re Bashas' Inc., 2012 WL 5289501 (D. Ariz. Oct. 25, 2012).

One of the most powerful tools a chapter 11 debtor has is the ability to assume or reject executory contracts under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.  In bankruptcy parlance, when a debtor “rejects” an executory contract, it is considered as though the debtor breached the agreement as of the date it filed for bankruptcy and sheds the debtor’s obligation to perform under the rejected contract.  The non-debtor party receives a claim for damages arising from the debtor’s breach; however, in many cases, it will be worth only pennies on the dollar.  The converse of rejection is

On January 27, 2012, Justice Newbould of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) released his decision in Temple (Re),1 holding that the Ontario Limitations Act, 20022 (the “Act”) does not apply to a bankruptcy application and does not operate to extinguish a debt owing to a creditor.

The Ontario Limitations Act, 2002

Introduction

Does the dissolution of a corporation that is in receivership terminate the receivership? Until the recent decision of Meta Energy Inc. v. Algatec Solarwerke Brandenberg GMBH, 2012 ONSC 175, 2012 ONSC 4873, there was no previous court decision directly on point. The answer to the question is “no.”

Background

A recent case illustrates the importance of clarity in the contractual arrangements associated with the disposition of a debtor’s assets. In the case, the Court appointed receiver was given Court approval for an auction services agreement. Under that agreement, the auctioneer was to conduct an auction sale of the debtor’s assets and was entitled to charge and collect a buyer’s premium equal to a minimum of 12% of the sales price.

In a recent decision authored by Chief Judge Easterbrook, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, Docket No. 11-3920 (7th Cir. July 9, 2012)) held that the licensee of a trademark does not necessarily lose the right to use the licensed marks when a debtor-licensor rejects the underlying license agreement in its bankruptcy case.  In so holding, the Court rejected a contrary decision reached by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Lubrizol Enterprises, Inc. v.