In a recent decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that an investor in a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit ("REMIC") lacked standing to object to the sale of a chapter 11 debtor's real property, despite that the property served as collateral for loans held in trust by the REMIC for the benefit of its investors.

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently addressed the issue of pension deficits in the context of a restructuring under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (the "CCAA"). However, unlike past decisions, in Re Indalex the Court held that such deficits may have priority against monies advanced under interim debtor-in-possession ("DIP") financing agreements authorized by a CCAA judge. This apparent departure from the conventional understanding of the priority of pension deficit claims and related issues should raise concerns for lenders, employers, and plan administrators.

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.

In 2005, Parliament passed a comprehensive package of reforms to Canadian insolvency and restructuring laws. The purpose of these amendments was to provide additional protections for employees, codify existing case law and practice, bolster the proposal process and conform Canadian laws concerning cross-border insolvencies to international practice.

The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) has decided that the sale of a business by way of a pre-pack administration[1] did not result in a transfer of employees under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, (TUPE Regulations or TUPE).

TUPE Regulations

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.