Intercreditor agreements between multiple lenders are part and parcel of lending to a company with several tranches of debt. Under section 510 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”), “[a] subordination agreement is enforceable in a case under this title to the same extent that such agreement is enforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law.” 11 U.S.C. § 510(a) (West 2017).

The sole shareholder of several closely held corporate entities engages in a fraudulent transfer by extinguishing one entity’s right to payment from a third party in exchange for the release of liabilities owed by other entities to that same third party. In Motorworld, Inc. v. William Benkendorf, et al., __ N.J. __ (Mar. 30, 2017), the New Jersey Supreme Court voided such a transfer against a Chapter 7 debtor corporation whose sole asset was a $600,000 loan receivable purportedly cancelled by the release.

​On April 24, 2017, the Alberta Court of Appeal issued a decision in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Limited, 2017 ABCA 124. The decision is arguably the past year’s most hotly anticipated and discussed decision in Alberta, despite involving bankruptcy proceedings of a relatively small junior oil and gas company. The Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 split, upheld the trial judge’s decision that a receiver can disclaim or renounce uneconomic assets that are subject to costly environmental liabilities.

​​​The Court of Appeal of Ontario found in Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Konga that the interpretation of a guarantee is a question of mixed fact and law, entitled to deference on appeal. Further, for a guarantor to obtain a discharge from the guarantee, he must establish that the bank's demand caused the debtor's default.

The Lightstream decision confirms that Canadian courts have the jurisdiction under the CCAA to both: (i) incorporate and apply the oppression remedy; and (ii) where appropriate, when oppressive conduct has occurred, grant an order requiring a corporation to issue additional securities. However, such jurisdiction is limited and defined by the scheme and purpose of the CCAA.

​In Re Lightstream Resources Ltd, 2016 ABQB 665 (Lightstream), the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Court) confirmed that it had jurisdiction to remedy oppressive conduct while a business is restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). The decision also provides insight as to when a court might exercise its equitable jurisdiction to remedy oppressive conduct in a CCAA proceeding.

Background

The Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 580 U.S. ___ (2017)1 on March 21, reversing the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ affirmance of an order approving the distribution of the proceeds of settlement of bankruptcy estate causes of action to general unsecured creditors via structured dismissal, with no distribution to holders of priority wage claims.

The Court framed the question presented, and its ruling, very narrowly—twice. First:

In a very recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that a negative inference to an exception to a negative covenant prevented a company from undertaking a proposed restructuring transaction. We find the case unique not because of the result necessarily, but rather because the court used the negative inference to override another express provision in the Credit Agreement.

From the public policy standpoint, there has been a shift towards more environmental stewardship in Canada, evidenced by heightened media attention on environmental issues and by an expanded legal framework relating to the management of environmental liabilities. For example, directors may be personally liable for violation of environmental statutes1 and may face reputational harm if the corporations they manage are found to have breached environmental rules or norms.

Although there has been much discussion of the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Marblegate, this article addresses a question other commentators have yet to tackle: namely, how the Second Circuit’s decision impacts the Trust Indenture Act’s protection of guarantee obligations included in an indenture. Below we provide our view on how Marblegate affects indenture guarantees. More specifically, we discuss how the decision is consistent with provisions of the TIA that expressly protect a noteholder’s payment rights under a guarantee.

Synopsis