This article is the first instalment in a series examining large retail insolvencies in Canada from the perspective of various stakeholders. The Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA) is the principal statute for the reorganization, or sale, of large corporate debtors in Canada and the functional equivalent to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Chapter 11) in the United States. Accordingly, our series focuses on CCAA proceedings, with references to alternate insolvency proceedings where applicable.

On June 16, 2017, Canada’s Department of Finance and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) published for comments a package of draft regulations and guidelines setting out the final details of Canada’s bail-in framework and related total loss absorbency capacity (TLAC) capital standard for Canada’s six domestic systemically important banks (DSIBs). The bail-in regulations are expected to be finalized in the fall of 2017 and will take effect 180 days later.

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, in Orphan Well Association v.Grant Thornton Limited, the Alberta Court of Appeal (Court) upheld Chief Justice N.

La Cour du Banc de la Reine de l’Alberta (la « Cour ») a clarifié la façon dont seront traitées les demandes en cas d’abus dans le cadre de procédures en vertu de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies (la « LACC »). Dans sa décision récente concernant l’affaire Lightstream Resources Ltd.

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:

The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (Court) has provided clarity on how oppression claims will be adjudicated in the context of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). In the recent decision in Lightstream Resources Ltd. (Re), the Court confirmed that it has jurisdiction to hear oppression claims, but held that the exercise of this discretion is limited to appropriate circumstances.

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.

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