The Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Indalex Limited (Re), 2011 ONCA 265 on April 7, 2011. The decision comes as a surprise to many pension and insolvency professionals, lenders and pension plan sponsors. The court, essentially, directed that monies held in reserve by the monitor appointed under the federal Companies Creditors Arrangement Act should be used to pay off pension fund deficits in preference to secured creditors.

Background

Recently, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Eighth Circuit decided In re EDM Corp.,[1] affirming that a creditor’s priority in collateral may be sacrificed if the debtor’s exact legal name is not exclusively used in the financing statement.

Perhaps prompted by revelations that one or more Connecticut-based insurers failed to notify individuals or report known data security incidents or breaches until weeks, or even months, after the data had been lost or stolen, the state's Insurance Commissioner has issued stringent new reporting obligations applicable to all entities regulated by the Connecticut Department of Insurance (CDI), including, for example, insurers, agents, brokers, adjusters, health maintenance organizations, preferred provider networks, discount health plans and certain consultants and utilization review companie

A group of creditors learned the hard way that there may be no excuse for a late claim. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge James Peck of the Southern District of New York recently disallowed seven proofs of claim that had been filed late in the Lehman bankruptcies. Judge Peck held that the reasons cited by the parties for the late filing did not rise to the level of “excusable neglect” and he was thus disallowing their claims. This is of particular interest as it comes out of the Southern District of New York, which has one of the largest bankruptcy dockets in the country.

The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the avoidance of nearly $2 million in postpetition payments made by debtor Delco Oil, Inc. (the "Debtor") to its petroleum supplier Marathon Petroleum Company, LLC ("Marathon").[1] The Eleventh Circuit held that funds received by Marathon from the Debtor constituted cash collateral that the Debtor had spent without the permission of either its secured lender, CapitalSource Finance ("CapitalSource"), or the bankruptcy court and, therefore, could be avoided under sections 549(a) and 363(c)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Hydro One Inc. v. Ontario (Financial Services Commission) on January 11, 2010. This was an appeal from the Ontario Divisional Court – see our Labour & Employment in the News dated April 18, 2008, that reported on the Divisional Court’s decision. The court dismissed the appeal, in favour of members of the Hydro One Pension Plan (the “Plan”).

In these trying times for our economy and our financial system, every business leader should pay attention to the company’s needs for working capital for the year and prepare for any potential problem related to its lack of liquidities.

We sent to you earlier this week an Alert on "Chrysler Bankruptcy Filing and Preliminary Impact on Suppliers." As we promised, below is an update based upon our review of the case and observations at the hearings.

Essential Supplier Motion

The Court approved treatment of essential suppliers on a temporary basis. Here is a summary of the Interim Order:

Chrysler's bankruptcy filing, which occurred on April 30, has generated considerable activity already. Baker Hostetler has been monitoring closely the Chrysler activity for our supplier clients. We attended the hearing on the first day filings, which were generally ministerial in nature. The court approved joint administration, maintenance of cash management/business forms, enforcement of automatic stay, payment of wages, and honoring of all warranties.

The Sixth Circuit recently held that section 2-702(3) of the Uniform Commercial Code (the "UCC"), which permits good faith purchasers to defeat a valid right to reclaim, does not allow a secured creditor to defeat that right.[1] The Sixth Circuit found that the security interest held by a DIP lender could not be used to defeat the right of a reclaiming creditor under the UCC or pre-BAPCPA section 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. This decision may impact the way bankruptcy courts consider reclamation claims under revised section 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code.