Prior to the 2009 amendments (the “Amendments”) to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”),¹  courts exercising jurisdiction under that statute could, in the appropriate circumstances, approve “roll up” debtor in possession (“DIP”) financing arrangements.  While it can take different forms, in essence, a “roll up” DIP loan facility is an arrangement whereby an existing lender refinances or repays its pre-filing loan by way of borrowings under the new DIP loan facility.  The priority status of the charge granted by the court to secure the DIP

On May 10th, FDIC Acting Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg discussed the FDIC's authority to resolve failing systemically important financial institutions ("SIFIs"). Gruenberg outlined how the FDIC would implement its resolution authority, noting that it would place the institution in receivership, creating a bridge holding company for the SIFI's assets and investments. Shareholders and subordinated and unsecured creditors would be left in receivership, although some of the SIFI's debt would be converted into equity.

On April 30th, the FDIC issued a final rule that treats a mutual insurance holding company as an insurance company for purposes of Section 203(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act. The new rule clarifies that the liquidation and rehabilitation of a covered financial company that is a mutual insurance holding company will be conducted in the same manner as an insurance company.

In the Kitchener Frame Ltd¹ decision, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) confirmed that third-party releases in proposals made under the BIA² are permitted. In doing so, the Court relied on the principle that the BIA and CCAA³ ought to be read and interpreted, harmoniously. Finally, the Court sanctioned a consolidated proposal on the basis it met the requirements set out in section 59(2) of the BIA.

On April 5th, the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards announced the approval of new rules regarding the disclosure of information concerning a CFP who has declared bankruptcy. CFP Board Announcement.  

On March 28th, the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee held hearings on MF Global, whose October 2011 collapse has raised questions concerning the protection of customer money. In her prepared remarks MF Global's general counsel Laurie Ferber described the days and hours preceding the firm's bankruptcy filing, including the two wire transfers that some have seen as evidence that the firm improperly used customer money, and about which JP Morgan (the ultimate recipient of the funds), had questions.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) has confirmed that historical environmental remediation obligations will not automatically take priority over the claims of other creditors in an insolvency, even where those obligations are framed in the form of regulatory orders.

Defanging Stern v. Marshall¹: The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Modifies the Reference of Bankruptcy Matters to Address Issues Resulting from the Supreme Court’s Ruling

On February 10, 2012, Judge Sean H. Lane of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a ruling in a Chapter 15 bankruptcy proceeding where The Containership Company (TCC) is the debtor. Numerous shippers in the proceeding requested that the Bankruptcy Court defer to the Federal Maritime Commission with respect to the shippers' claims that TCC violated the Shipping Act of 1984.

On February 1st, the Tenth Circuit held that Deutsche Bank failed to establish it was a "party of interest" entitled to relief from a bankruptcy petition's automatic stay. After Deutsche Bank's foreclosure of the Millers' home was stayed by the latter's bankruptcy petition, the bank obtained relief from the stay. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded. The bank failed to provide the original note to the bankruptcy court and did not provide the original or a copy to the bankruptcy appellate panel.