Yesterday Governor Scott Walker signed into law SB 241 which permits non-judicial foreclosures for mortgages and assessment liens on timeshare estates and licenses.  The new law took effect upon being signed by Governor Scott Walker.

Patient care ombudsmen are sometimes appointed to monitor the care provided to patients of medical facilities that have filed for bankruptcy. Courts, however, weigh a number of factors in determining whether an ombudsman should be appointed, and whether the patients and the facility’s creditors would benefit from the appointment.

A recent New York bankruptcy case holds that shareholders, directors and officers who dissolve a corporation to avoid paying a judgment against the business may be jointly and severally liable for a non-dischargeable debt in their personal bankruptcies.

If there was such a contest, the 232-unit Spa at Sunset Isles would be in the running for "worst case scenario" condo-conversion.  Here is a summary of the development's situation as it existed in late 2010:  

While 90 percent of life may be just showing up, showing up late may be just as bad as never showing up at all. Just ask two creditors who were told for the second time they cannot file claims in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy case because they filed their claims too late.

Section 11.01 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) states that no order under Section 11 or 11.02 of the CCAA has the effect of: (a) prohibiting a person from requiring immediate payment for goods, services, the use of leased or licensed property or other valuable consideration provided after the order is made; or (b) requiring the further advance of money or credit.

As most are aware by now, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) recently caused alarm by finding that claims of pension plan beneficiaries ranked higher than the super-priority debtor-in-possession financing charge (the “DIP Charge”) created by the amended initial order (the “CCAA Order”) in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) proceedings of the Indalex group of Canadian companies (collectively, “Indalex”).

During the past 14 months, courts in Ontario have rendered three decisions dealing with the application of limitation periods to claims for fraudulent conveyances or preferences. A “limitation period” is a period of time, specified in a statute, within which a plaintiff must commence a court proceeding to seek a remedy. Otherwise, the claim is said to be “statute-barred” and an action to enforce the claim will be dismissed.

The recent decisions have brought some clarity to the law in this area, but have left other questions unanswered.

Background

A recent New York bankruptcy case holds that the Bankruptcy Code's limitations on using avoidance actions to undo securities transactions did not apply where the underlying transactions did not implicate the public securities market. A debtor or bankruptcy trustee has the power and obligation to recover transfers made by the debtor, prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy case, that were either actually or constructively fraudulent. There are, however, certain enumerated limitations to this power.

In the recent case of Peterborough (City) v. Kawartha Native Housing Society, the Ontario Court of Appeal was asked to determine: