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.

In Sposato v. First Mariner Bank, 2013 WL 1308582 (D. Md.

On February 4th, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by plaintiffs, who controlled a mutual bank before it collapsed, against the FDIC as both regulator and as receiver. The Administrative Procedures Act (the "APA") claim against the FDIC as regulator, which seeks money damages and an order directing the FDIC to treat $23.6 million in subordinated debt as bank deposits, is a claim for substitute relief barred by the APA.

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.

• Approximately 5,000 Bakery Confectionery Tobacco and Grain Millers Union (BCTGM) members across the country struck Hostess Brands, Inc., to protest the company’s imposition of its last, best, and final contract. That contract, which provided for an 8% wage cut and a 17% reduction in health and welfare benefits, was rejected by BCTGM members in September, but ratified by some 7,500 Hostess employees represented by the Teamsters. In October, Hostess received federal bankruptcy court approval to impose the contract.

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

Introduction

Does the dissolution of a corporation that is in receivership terminate the receivership? Until the recent decision of Meta Energy Inc. v. Algatec Solarwerke Brandenberg GMBH, 2012 ONSC 175, 2012 ONSC 4873, there was no previous court decision directly on point. The answer to the question is “no.”

Background

A recent case illustrates the importance of clarity in the contractual arrangements associated with the disposition of a debtor’s assets. In the case, the Court appointed receiver was given Court approval for an auction services agreement. Under that agreement, the auctioneer was to conduct an auction sale of the debtor’s assets and was entitled to charge and collect a buyer’s premium equal to a minimum of 12% of the sales price.

A few weeks ago, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the Western District Court of Michigan’s holding in U.S. v. Quality Stores Inc., 424 B.R. 237 (W.D. Mich. 2010), that severance payments made to employees pursuant to an involuntary reduction in force were not “wages” for Federal Insurance Contribution Act (“FICA”) tax purposes. U.S. v. Quality Stores Inc., No. 10-1563 (6th Cir. 2012). The Sixth Circuit’s decision creates a circuit court split with the Federal Circuit and its 2008 decision in CSX Corporation v. United States, 518 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008).