Since it was issued three years ago by the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, the Clear Channel decision (Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Knupfer (In re PW, LLC), 391 B.R. 25 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2008)) has been widely criticized as “an aberration in well-settled bankruptcy jurisprudence.” Before Clear Channel, conventional wisdom (and what most people perceived to be the law) supported the notion that a bankruptcy sale order that contained a good faith finding under Section 363(m) could not be disturbed on appeal.

In a decision that may have significant practical implications to the practice of bankruptcy law, the U.S. Supreme Court recently declared, on constitutional grounds, that a bankruptcy court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a debtor’s state law counterclaims, thus considerably limiting the ability of the bankruptcy court to fully and finally adjudicate claims in a bankruptcy case. Stern v. Marshall, No. 10-179 (June 23, 2011).

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.

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

Introduction

This Note deals with the potential liabilities under English Law of the directors and officers (secretary and managers) of a UK company in the event of its (potential) insolvency.  

Summary  

Directors - and, to a lesser extent, other officers of a company - face a number of areas of potential personal liability. Of most relevance is the liability of the directors for ‘wrongful trading’.  

The priorities of some pension claims on bankruptcy and receivership changed as a result of amendments effective July 8, 2008 to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act R.S.C. (Canada) (the “BIA”).  

Priority Before the Amendments

The decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal earlier this year in Slater Steel* exposed 10 directors, officers and employees to possible personal liability of $20 million with no meaningful recourse against the insolvent Slater Steel or its assets. This is a reminder that failure to recognize and fulfill fiduciary obligations for a pension plan can expose you to substantial personal liability.