In April 2010, we reported on the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the “Superior Court”) in In the Matter of the Proposal of C.I.F. Furniture Limited (“CIF”) which dealt with the question of circular priorities. This decision was recently upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”). The Court of Appeal’s decision will offer some comfort to lenders where intercreditor agreements exist between some but not all of the secured lenders of a borrower.

In the Ontario case of Re Xerium Technologies Inc., the Superior Court of Justice (the “Ontario Court”) was asked to recognize an order made by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “U.S. Court”) approving a prepackaged plan of reorganization (the “Plan”) of the debtors, Xerium Technologies Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, “Xerium”), made under Chapter 11 of the United States Code (the “U.S. Bankruptcy Code”).

In our last Financial Services Flash, we emphasized the issue that lenders need to be aware of specific restrictions that may apply to the liquidation of inventory over which they have security. This Flash considers the general notion that a lender needs to be cognizant of some unique and sometimes unexpected liabilities of the borrower which may take priority over such lender’s security. There are, of course, many ‘priority payables’ which are commonly known, whether they relate to unpaid wages, certain sales taxes, pension plan obligations, etc.

The South Florida Bankruptcy Court in the Tousa case ordered various creditors that had benefitted from a fraudulent conveyance to disgorge $421,000,000 to the jointly-administered Tousa bankruptcy estates. The court also ordered the avoidance of liens on the assets of various Tousa subsidiary entities who were also debtors in the bankruptcy proceedings. This case may raise increased focus upon the legal theory of fraudulent conveyance, which was the rationale used by the bankruptcy court to order the money returned.

The Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law has been amended effective as of October 29, 2009, by adding new protections for occupants of dwelling units1 in properties that are in foreclosure. These protections will apply to projects which were rental housing from the outset, and to for-sale housing projects in which units are being rented pending sale or which have been converted to rental housing.  

Notice to Occupants by Receivers and Mortgagees in Possession

In a 56-page opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sent a long-pending trade secrets case, Jasco Tools, Inc. v. Dana Corporation, Appeal No. 08-2762-bk, back to the lower court for further proceedings because of the bankruptcy court's "flawed application of well established summary judgment principles." (Slip Op.

As a general rule, a debtor realizes taxable income upon the partial or total cancellation of its debt. Special rules may apply, however, when the debtor is a “pass-through” entity—e.g., a partnership, a limited liability company (LLC) that is treated as a partnership for United States federal income tax purposes or a subchapter S corporation. Cancellation of debt (COD) income realized by a pass-through entity generally passes through to the entity’s owners, with each owner being required to report its allocable share of such income on its own income tax return.

With an increasing emphasis on identifying value in the marketplace, entrepreneurs have focused their efforts on acquiring debt instruments, senior secured and mezzanine, in particular. Two primary strategies are being employed with respect to the debt: (1) acquire the debt for the purposes of restructuring the terms with the borrower(s) or (2) acquire the debt for the purpose of exercising the creditor’s remedies (i.e., foreclosing on the equity).

On January 13, 2009, in Fisk Ventures, LLC v. Segal, the Court of Chancery of Delaware considered the petition by an investor to have Genetrix, LLC dissolved because it was no longer “reasonably practicable” to continue to operate the company when the company had no operating revenue, no prospects of equity or debt infusion, a deadlocked board of directors and an operating agreement that gave no means of navigating around the deadlock. The court found in favor of the investor and concluded that judicial dissolution was the best and only option for the members in the company.

On December 10, 2008, Bernard Madoff confessed to his two sons that he had been running what amounted to a massive Ponzi scheme on the scale of approximately $50 billion and that he could no longer sustain it due to, among other things, substantial redemption requests. That night, his sons alerted authorities.