A New Jersey District Court recently addressed several issues in connection with the appointment of a future claims representative (“FCR”). In light of the recent increase in mass-tort bankruptcy cases, exploring these issues is timely.

Background

A Manitoba Court recently offered guidance on how to approach an appeal from a notice of disallowance or determination of a claim under section 135(4) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 ("BIA"). Existing jurisprudence provided conflicting positions on whether to treat such appeals as true appeals or a hearing de novo. True appeals generally restrict the evidentiary record before the court to the evidence that was before the trustee. In a de novo hearing, the appeal court considers fresh evidence as a matter of course.

A Manitoba Court recently offered guidance on how to approach an appeal from a notice of disallowance or determination of a claim under section 135(4) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (“BIA”). Existing jurisprudence provided conflicting positions on whether to treat such appeals as true appeals or a hearing de novo. True appeals generally restrict the evidentiary record before the court to the evidence that was before the trustee. In a de novo hearing, the appeal court considers fresh evidence as a matter of course.

Background

Following various disputes as to the scope of the collateral given to secured creditors, the debtors and certain of their noteholders jointly proposed a chapter 11. The plan included a rights offering that the consenting noteholders agreed to backstop. These consenting noteholders were granted the right to purchase significant equity of the reorganized debtors at a discount and receive significant premiums for their agreement to backstop the rights offering and support the plan.

A recent decision out of the District Court for the Southern District of New York may bring greater certainty to the interpretation of what constitutes a “financial institution” in connection with the safe harbor in section 546(e) of the bankruptcy code. The decision, In re Tribune Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., 2019 U.S. Dist. Lexis 69081 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.

Merit Management

Sutton 58 Associates LLC v. Pilevsky et al., is a New York case which gets to the heart of the enforceability of classic single-purpose entity restrictions in commercial real estate lending. At issue is how far a third-party may go to cause a violation of a borrower’s SPE covenants, and whether those covenants are enforceable at all.

A Defaulted Construction Loan and Frustrated Attempts to Foreclose:

In Mission Products Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a question that vexed the lower courts and resulted in a circuit split: does the rejection by a debtor-licensor of a trademark license agreement terminate the licensee’s rights under the rejected license?

Bill C-97 (the “Bill”) was introduced in Parliament to implement the federal budget tabled by the Liberal government on March 19, 2019. The Bill includes proposed changes to the Canada Business Corporations Act (“CBCA”), the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) and the Companies Creditors’ Arrangements Act (“CCAA”).

It is a well-established principle of bankruptcy law that claims generally crystallize as of the bankruptcy petition date. Of course, section 506(b) of the bankruptcy code allows over-secured, secured creditors to recover post-petition interest and costs, including reasonable legal fees, if their documentation provides them with the right to recover these costs. But what about unsecured creditors – are post-petition legal fees incurred by an unsecured creditor whose contract with the debtor provides for reimbursement of legal fees allowed or not?