The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in (Re) Indalex has changed the landscape for both lenders and borrowers in Canada who sponsor registered defined benefit pension plans. For lenders, carefully drafted loan documentation and effective planning can enhance the protection of a secured lender’s position in the face of the broadened scope of a deemed trust applicable to a borrower’s defined benefit pension obligations.
In (Re) Indalex, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) affirmed the super-priority of the security granted to a debtor-in-possession (DIP) lender, over a deemed trust created under provincial pension legislation, in the context of a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding. The SCC’s analysis leaves open further issues.
- 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.
In Re Sino-Forest Corporation1, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the interpretation of “equity claims” employed by Justice Morawetz of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List).
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).
On September 14, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the trial court's finding that a failed bank's parent did not make a capital maintenance commitment to the bank. After the parent filed for bankruptcy, the FDIC was appointed receiver for the bank. The FDIC then sought payment from the parent under the statute requiring a party seeking reorganization to fulfill commitments to maintain the capital of an insured depository institution.
On August 20th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed a trial court's ruling finding that judgments against Ponzi scheme "net gainers" were non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. The debtors were early investors in what turned out to be a Ponzi scheme and received more money than they invested. When the Ponzi scheme was uncovered, the state State of Oklahoma sued the debtors for unjust enrichment but not for any securities violations. After the State obtained a judgment on the unjust enrichment claim, the debtors declared bankruptcy.
On July 16th, the National Futures Association ("NFA") announced it has requested that the Special Committee for the Protection of Customer Funds, consisting of the public representatives on NFA's Board of Directors, retain the services of a national law firm to conduct a careful internal review of NFA's audit practices and procedures, and the execution of those procedures in the specific instance of Peregrine Financial Group, to assure that the right procedures are in place and that they are being properly followed.
On March 15, 2012, the American Bar Association’s Electronic Discovery (ESI) in Bankruptcy Working Group (the “Working Group”) published an interim report addressing certain principles and suggested best practices for electronic discovery in bankruptcy cases (the “Interim Report”). The Working Group was formed to study and prepare guidelines or a “best practices” report on the scope and timing of a party’s obligation to preserve ESI in bankruptcy cases.
On June 22nd, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") and the Treasury Department issued a final rule on the calculation of the maximum obligation limitation ("MOL"), as specified in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the "Dodd-Frank Act"). The MOL limits the aggregate amount of outstanding obligations that the FDIC may issue or incur in connection with the orderly liquidation of a covered financial company. The new rule is effective July 23, 2012.