The U.S. Supreme Court held that a secured creditor in a chapter 7 bankruptcy case is protected from having its lien “stripped off” even if the collateral securing its claim is worth less than the claims asserted by a senior secured creditor; i.e.the junior creditor’s secured claim is completely "out of the money.” The June 1, 2015 decision, Bank of America, N.A. v. Caulkett, reaffirmed the Court’s prior holding in Dewsnup v.

On May 26, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, so long as parties knowingly and voluntarily consent, a bankruptcy court can issue final orders on matters that it otherwise would not have the constitutional authority to decide. In Wellness Int’l Network v. Sharif,¹ a highly anticipated decision, the majority of the Supreme Court delivered a pragmatic opinion that quelled fears stemming from the Court’s 2011 decision in Stern v.

Recently, Corinthian Colleges, Inc., one of the United States' largest for-profit educational conglomerations with 72,000 students across 107 campuses, filed (along with 25 affiliated subsidiaries) a chapter 11 voluntary petition for bankruptcy protection. Corinthian reported $19.2 million of total assets and US$143.1 million of total debts, and plans to liquidate.

What happens when a debtor, whose loan is pooled and securitized, files for bankruptcy? Are payments made to investors recoverable as fraudulent transfers or preferences?

In what appears to be a matter of first impression, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently held that payments made to investors in a two tiered securitization structure commonly employed in commercial mortgage-backed securitization (“CMBS”) transactions are largely protected from fraudulent or preferential transfer claims by the securities contract safe harbor set forth in Bankruptcy Code section 546(e). Specifically, in Krol v.

When a debtor pays the market cost for goods and services provided to it by third-party vendors, these payments normally cannot be recovered as fraudulent transfers in the U.S. That is because the debtor receives reasonably equivalent value for the payments to its vendors and because the unsuspecting vendors can assert a good faith defense based on the value provided.

In the context of a tenant’s bankruptcy, Justice Romaine of the Alberta Queens Bench recently characterized a deposit provided under a lease as a security interest, as opposed to pre-paid rent, forcing an unsecured landlord to remit the money to a trustee in bankruptcy.

Un avis de cotisation de l’Agence du revenu du Canada (l’ARC) constitue une mesure de recouvrement prouvable au sens de l’article 69.3 de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité (LFI). Lorsque l’ARC est un créancier non garanti, la réclamation est sujette à la suspension des procédures de l’article 69.3 LFI, et pour lever cette suspension, l’ARC doit se présenter devant le tribunal, tel que prévu par l’article 69.4 LFI.

Antérieurement à sa faillite, la débitrice agissait à titre d’entreprise fournissant des services de « warehousing, receiving and shipping (pick and pack) ».

Après la faillite de l’entreprise survenue le 9 janvier 2014, l’un de ses anciens clients a réclamé du syndic la remise de ses inventaires.

Un torréfacteur manufacturier de café veut pétitionner en faillite son distributeur dans la région de l’Estrie. Cette procédure de faillite est assortie d’une demande pour ordonnance de sauvegarde afin que le tribunal prononce l’annulation de clauses de non-concurrence et de non-sollicitation.