At the start of the pandemic, insolvency filings were expected to increase by 35% in 2020 and 2021. While some industries were hit hard, this prediction never materialized in Canada and the U.S., possibly because of significant financial government support. The future is less clear, with Allianz Research forecasting, for 2022, a 15% increase in insolvency filings and a 5.5–6% decrease in global economic growth.
Below are five key trends that may impact insolvencies this year, based on data published by the World Bank:
Overview
In Highland Capital Mgmt. v. Dondero (In re Highland Capital Mgmt.), Case No. 21-03007-sgj (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2021), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas held that a debtor could not be compelled to abide by an arbitration clause in an agreement that was rejected pursuant to Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.
Background
Overview
In Hilal K. Homaidan v. Sallie Mae, Inc., Navient Solutions, LLC, Navient Credit Finance Corporation, Case No. 20-1981 (2d Cir. 2021), the Second Circuit affirmed the opinion of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York, which held that private student loans are not excepted from discharge under Section 523(a)(8)(A)(ii) of the Bankruptcy Code, which excepts from discharge “an obligation to repay funds received as an educational benefit, scholarship, or stipend.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(A)(ii).
Background
A comparison of the key differences between Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.
Blakes and Blakes Business Class communications are intended for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or an opinion on any issue. We would be pleased to provide additional details or advice about specific situations if desired.
The Bottom Line
When is an insurance commissioner not a governmental authority? A federal district judge reminds us that a state insurance commissioner, when acting as receiver of an insolvent insurer, acts in a different capacity to his governmental role. This principle can cause an insurance commissioner to fall outside a contractual definition of “governmental authority” even where the definition contains inclusive language on multiple capacities.
Although not a new concept, use of the reverse vesting order (RVO) structure to effect distressed M&A transactions in proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA) has quickly gained popularity in Canada over the last year. At its core, an RVO transaction involves a transfer of unwanted assets and liabilities — the “bad assets” — out of a distressed company into a newly established non-operating subsidiary, leaving the distressed business entity with only the “good assets” left to be acquired.
Le 1er avril 2021, la Cour suprême du Canada a rejeté la demande d’autorisation d’appel de la décision de la Cour d’appel du Québec dans l’affaire Séquestre de Media5 Corporation, 2020 QCCA 943. Par conséquent, les tribunaux du Québec ont maintenant confirmation de la marche à suivre pour la nomination de séquestres nationaux à la demande des créanciers garantis.
Le 20 juillet 2020, la Cour d’appel du Québec annulait la décision rendue par la Cour supérieure et confirmait les principes suivants :
On April 1st, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the application for leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal of Québec in Séquestre de Media5 Corporation, 2020 QCCA 943. As a result, Quebec courts now have clarity regarding their ability to appoint national receivers for secured creditors.
On July 20, 2020, the Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s decision and confirmed the following principles:
Overview
In In re Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc., Case No. 18-3084, the Third Circuit affirmed the opinion of the District Court for the District of Delaware denying the confirmation appeal of an unsecured noteholder as equitably moot. In doing so, the Third Circuit (i) refused to allow a full-class recovery, as it would unscramble the substantially consummated plan, and (ii) refused an individualized payout to the bondholder, as it would unfairly discriminate against other members of the class in contravention of the Bankruptcy Code.