On April 16, 2012, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County, entered an Order of Liquidation and Approval of the ELNY Restructuring Agreement (Order) and accompanying memorandum decision. The Order was entered over the objections of a number of ELNY payees, and followed an 11 day hearing that took place in March 2012.

The common law has long recognized a secured creditor’s duty to provide reasonable notice to borrowers before enforcing its security and appointing a receiver. The practical importance of this has become less significant since the codification of the principle of reasonable notice in section 244 of theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”). However, in the recent case of Bank of Montreal v.

Many experienced business people are now familiar with the process by which their valid and successful debt collection efforts result in liability under the preference provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

New amendments to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2019 were recently adopted in an attempt to clarify requirements surrounding file 2019 statements in Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.

Prior to the amendments, which were adopted Dec. 1, 2011, Rule 2019 was often applied in an inconsistent haphazard manner resulting in a great deal of uncertainty regarding who was required to file the statement and under what circumstances that statement was required to be filed.  

The Original Rule 2019

If you are a creditor of a Delaware limited liability company and wish to pursue derivative claims on behalf of an insolvent company against the company’s present or former managers based on breaches of fiduciary duties, you may be out of luck. The Delaware Supreme Court recently decided in CML V LLC v. Bax, 2011 Del. LEXIS 480 (Sept. 2, 2011), that creditors’ rights against limited liability companies differ from those against corporations.

In the midst of the ongoing restructurings of Nortel and AbitibiBowater, the New Democrats introduced Bill C-501 in the spring of 2010 to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) with the goal of better protecting employees’ interests in the context of formal insolvency proceedings, including pension interests. However, Bill C-501 did not become law.

Introduction

In “True Lease v. Security Lease – Is the Distinction Still Relevant?” which appeared in the June 2008 issue of Collateral Matters, Jill Fraser discussed a 2007 amendment to the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (the “PPSA”) and whether or not the distinction between a true lease and a security lease was still relevant in light of that amendment.

We write to provide an important update concerning Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (“ELNY”).

Recently secured parties, including some indenture trustees, have found the priority, scope, validity and enforceability of seemingly properly perfected security interests in Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) licenses, authorizations and permits, and any proceeds or value derived therefrom, challenged by creditors in bankruptcy proceedings.

Imagine a scenario in which you have a long standing relationship with an important customer and you learn that this customer is running into financial difficulties. In the current economic cycle, this is probably not a hypothetical, but, rather, an everyday reality. During the course of the relationship, this important customer has from time to time fallen behind in paying invoices and has even reached or exceeded the credit limits your company has imposed on this customer.