Hello All,

Topics covered by the Court of Appeal this week in its civil decisions included franchise law (duty of disclosure), employment law (WSIB and wrongful dismissal of dependent contractors), insolvency (statutory privilege of documents), debtor-creditor (capacity to execute guarantees), MVA (liability of automobile lessors), family law (property claims of unmarried common law spouses), contracts (interpretation and specific performance), and motions to strike for no reasonable cause of action (a claim by a lawyer against the Law Society and a securities class action).

Hello again for another week,

The June 2013 issue of Baseload included the article “A $400 Million Devil in the Details: The Cautionary Tale of the Chesapeake Par Call.” We published an update to that article in the January 2015 issue. On July 10, 2015, the District Court for the Southern District of New York held that Chesapeake is required to pay the noteholders the make-whole amount.

If repayment of debt is accelerated as a result of bankruptcy, are debtholders eligible to receive a make-whole premium? The answer from an increasing number of courts is, without specific language in the indenture, no. Indentures usually include specific language to protect investors by declaring that upon certain designated “bankruptcy events,” all outstanding securities issued under that indenture become immediately due and payable (without further action from the holders of the securities).

Historically, investment grade debt with a make-whole provision was fairly straightforward. At any time during the life of the instrument, the issuer had the right to redeem the debt. But the price to be paid included the discounted value of the remaining payments of principal and interest over the life of the debt. Because the cost of paying the “make-whole” is often significant, issuers seldom redeem bonds when they are required to pay the make-whole price.

Original Newsletter(s) this article was published in: Blaneys on Business Bulletin: June 2015

The courts in Ontario and Delaware have decided who is to be paid what from the more than $7.1 billion available to meet creditors’ claims in the Nortel Networks insolvency, closing the 120-year-old book on Canada’s first global research, development and technology enterprise.

The biggest insolvency in national retailing history, Target stores’ Canadian subsidiary, is scheduled to take key steps on the road to resolution this month and over the summer.

Target Canada applied for protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) last January 15 so that it could restructure and liquidate. It then closed all its 133 stores, eliminating the jobs of more than 14,000 employees and leaving its landlords and almost 1,800 other suppliers on the hook for close to $3 billion. 

On May 4, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion regarding a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (the “First Circuit”).1 The question on appeal was whether debtor Louis Bullard (“Bullard”) could immediately appeal the bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of his proposed Chapter 13 payment plan (the “Plan”).2 The Court held that denial of confirmation of a debtor’s plan is not a final, appealable order.3  

Case Background

© 2015 Hunton & Williams LLP 1 May 2015 Oak Rock Financial District Court Addresses the Applicable Legal Standard for True Participation Agreements The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently applied two tests, the True Participation Test and the Disguised Loan Test, to determine whether agreements were true participation agreements or disguised loans.1 In addition, the District Court noted that the most important question in such a determination is the risk of loss allocation in the transaction, and that if an alleged participant is not subject to the

In Quadrant Structured Products Company, Ltd. v. Vertin, the Delaware Court of Chancery made two key rulings concerning the rights of creditors to bring derivative lawsuits against corporate directors.¹  First,  the court held that there is no continuous insolvency requirement during the pendency of the lawsuit.