It has long been standard practice for Court-appointed receivers, monitors and trustees in bankruptcy to include comprehensive disclaimer language in the reports they submit to Court in connection with insolvency proceedings. The reason is simple – these reports are relied on by the Court and other parties to the proceedings, and are often prepared using unaudited and unverified information obtained from management of the debtor company.

On April 2, 2013, Justice Mesbur of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) granted an application brought by Business Development Bank of Canada (“BDC”) for the appointment of a receiver over the assets, undertakings and properties of Pine Tree Resort Inc. and 1212360 Ontario Limited, operating as the Delawana Inn in Honey Harbour, Ontario (together, “Delawana”).

It is no surprise to anyone in the business of secured lending that valuation matters.  It is worth noting, however, that collateral valuation may be outcome-determinative in litigation over a plan of reorganization in bankruptcy.  Although valuation was not the central focus of the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Western Real Estate Equities, L.L.C. v. Village at Camp Bowie I, L.P. (Matter of Village at Camp Bowie I, L.P.), No. 12-10271, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3949 (5th Cir. Feb.

Recently, an NLRB administrative law judge ruled that two policies maintained by subsidiaries of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (“UPMC”) violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act.  See UPMC, Case No. 6-CA-81896, 4/19/13. Specifically, ALJ David Goldman found that the hospitals’ electronic mail and messaging and acceptable use of information technology resources policies impermissibly interfered with employees’ Section 7 right to engage in protected concerted activity.

On February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) released its long-awaited decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steel Workers1 (“Indalex”). By a five to two majority, the SCC allowed the appeal from the 2011 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) which had created so much uncertainty about the relative priorities of debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) lending charges and pension claims in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) proceedings.

The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act¹ (the “CCAA”) is by far the most flexible Canadian law under which a corporation can restructure its business. When compared against theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act² (the “BIA”), the CCAA looks like a blank canvass and lends itself well to invention and mutual compromise.

On February 1, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) released its long-awaited decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steel Workers. By a five to two majority, the SCC allowed the appeal from the 2011 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) which had created so much uncertainty about the priority of pension claims in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) proceedings.

In October 2012, The Futura Loyalty Group Inc. (“Futura”) commenced proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”). On November 13, 2012, Justice Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) considered Futura’s request to permit pre-filing, prepayment obligations to its key customers.

Under Section 436 of the Internal Revenue Code, a single employer defined benefit plan sponsored by a company in bankruptcy cannot pay any “prohibited payments” (e.g., lump sums, Social Security level income annuity payments) if the plan is less than 100% funded. In June 2012, the IRS issued proposed regulations permitting such a defined benefit plan to be amended to eliminate prohibited payment forms without violating the anti-cutback requirements of Internal Revenue Code Section 411(d)(6) if certain conditions are satisfied.

On January 27, 2012, Justice Newbould of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) released his decision in Temple (Re),1 holding that the Ontario Limitations Act, 20022 (the “Act”) does not apply to a bankruptcy application and does not operate to extinguish a debt owing to a creditor.

The Ontario Limitations Act, 2002