Today, amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA)and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), introduced to Parliament in April 2019 as Bill C-97, came into force. Certain of these amendments are likely to impact the usual flow of business among insolvency and restructuring professionals.

In an 8-1decision issued on May 20, the Supreme Court held that rejection of an executory trademark license agreement in a bankruptcy of the licensor is merely a breach, and not a termination or rescission, of the agreement. The licensee retains whatever rights it would have had upon a breach of the agreement prior to bankruptcy and can continue to use the trademarks pursuant to its contractual rights under applicable law. Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 587 U.S. ___, No. 17-1657 (May 20, 2019).

Background

As Yeats said in his poem, The Second Coming: "mere anarchy is loosed upon the world". While perhaps not anarchy, certainly most insolvency practitioners expected the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in Redwater[1] to be upheld, preserving the priorities afforded to secured creditors and rendering the Provincial Government to be an unsecured Creditor.

What Is the "Rule in Gibbs"?

The rule in Gibbs is a long-established common law principle in which the Court of Appeal determined that a debt governed by English law cannot be discharged or compromised by a foreign insolvency proceeding(Anthony Gibbs and Sons v La Société Industrielle et Commerciale des Métaux (1890) 25 QBD 399). The rule in Gibbs remains a fundamental tenet of English insolvency law.

Why Does the Rule in Gibbs Matter?

In a brief but significant opinion, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware reversed a decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and allowed more than $30 million in unsecured, post-petition fees incurred by an indenture trustee ("Indenture Trustee").1 In reversing, the District Court relied upon a uniform body of Court of Appeals opinions issued on the subject.

On December 10, 2018, the Superior Court of Quebec (Court) released an important judgment concerning the assignment of contracts under the Companies' Creditors Arrangements Act (CCAA), in which the Court held that it was possible for an assignee to have contracts transferred to it without having to assume the monetary penalties arising from the assumed contracts for defaults by the assignor prior to the assignment.[1]

The recent decision in ITB Marine Group Ltd. v. Northern Transportation Company Limited, 2017 BCSC 2007 ["ITB"] confirms the priority of pension claims in the insolvency context. The decision will be of interest to practitioners involved in priority disputes between secured creditors and beneficiaries of statutory deemed trusts, particularly those arising out of pension legislation.

On October 20, 2017, in In re MPM Silicones, LLC ("Momentive"), Nos. 15-1682, 15-1771, 15-1824, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, considering the Supreme Court's opinion in Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (2004), adopted the Sixth Circuit's two-step approach to determining an appropriate cramdown interest rate that, in certain circumstances, results in the application of a market rate of interest. In doing so, the Second Circuit reversed the bankruptcy and district court holdings on the cramdown interest rate issue.

On June 22, Sears Canada Inc. ("Sears Canada") and certain affiliates1 (collectively, the "Sears Canada Group") sought and obtained insolvency protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the "Court"), which in turn appointed FTI Consulting Canada Inc. (FTI or the "Monitor") as monitor.

For many litigants, the decision whether to prosecute or defend a lawsuit vigorously boils down to a rather basic calculus: What are my chances of success? What is the potential recovery or loss? Is this a "bet the company" litigation? And, how much will I have to pay the lawyers? In many respects, it is not all that different from a poker player eyeing his chip stack and deciding whether the pot odds and implied odds warrant the call of a big bet.