The United States Supreme Court has agreed to address “[w]hether, under §365 of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor-licensor’s ‘rejection’ of a license agreement—which ‘constitutes a breach of such contract,’ 11 U.S.C. §365(g)—terminates rights of the licensee that would survive the licensor’s breach under applicable nonbankruptcy law.” The appeal arises from a First Circuit decision, Mission Prod. Holdings, Inc. v.

The recent restructuring proceedings of Concordia International Corp. (Concordia) demonstrate that the arrangement provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) remain as a powerful tool for balance sheet restructurings in Canada. These provisions allow a company to submit a plan of arrangement for creditor and court approval in order to affect a balance sheet restructuring in a timely and efficient manner.

Retail Insolvencies in Canada Series, #4: Lender Perspectives

By Linc Rogers and Aryo Shalviri

This is the fourth and final instalment in a series examining large retail insolvencies in Canada from the perspective of various stakeholders. This article discusses retail insolvencies from the perspective of lenders to distressed Canadian retailers.

This article trails the successful emergence of Toys "R" Us Canada from Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA) protection following the acquisition of its shares by Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited.

The global M&A market has remained strong from the end of 2017 into 2018, with the total deals announced in the first half of 2018 making it the best period for global M&A yet. With stockholders pressuring larger companies to grow their revenues and the strong liquidity position of many companies, it is a sellers’ market.

A recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision provides insight into “bad faith” claims-buying activity; specifically whether a creditor’s purchase of claims for the express purpose of blocking plan confirmation is permissible. In In re Fagerdala USA-Lompoc, Inc., the Court found it was—the secured creditor did not act in bad faith when it purchased a subset of all general unsecured claims and voted those claims against confirmation because it was acting to further its own economic interest as a creditor, without some extrinsic ulterior motive.

It is not unusual for a creditor of a debtor to cry foul that a non-debtor affiliate has substantial assets, but has not joined the bankruptcy. In some cases, the creditor may assert that even though its claim, on its face, is solely against the debtor, the debtor and the non-debtor conducted business as a single unit, or that the debtor indicated that the assets of the non-debtor were available to satisfy claims. In these circumstances, the creditor would like nothing more than to drag that asset-rich non-debtor into the bankruptcy to satisfy its claims. Is that possible?

The Supreme Court recently addressed two bankruptcy issues. In its opinion, the Court resolved a circuit split regarding the breadth of the safe harbor provision which protects certain transfers by financial institutions in connection with a securities contract. In Village at Lakeridge, the Court weighed in on the scope of appellate review and whether a bankruptcy court’s factual determination should be reviewed for clear error or de novo. These decisions are notable because they provide guidance on previously murky issues of bankruptcy law.

Justice R. Graesser of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Court) recently released his decision in Royal Bank of Canada v.Reid-Built Homes Ltd. (Decision), where he held that the Court has the discretion, but not the obligation, to grant a super priority for receivers’ fees and disbursements ahead of the claims of secured creditors.

This is the third instalment in a series examining large retail insolvencies in Canada from the perspective of various stakeholders. This article discusses insolvencies from the perspective of corporate parents of distressed Canadian retailers.

Judge Swain’s decision in the PROMESA Title III bankruptcy proceeding of the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (“PRHTA”) that a federal bankruptcy court cannot compel a municipal debtor to apply special revenues to post-petition debt service payments on special revenue bonds has generated controversy and caused some market participants to question whether, if the decision is upheld by the First Circuit on appeal, the perception that special revenue bonds have special rights in bankruptcy remains justified.