The Delaware Bankruptcy Court has confirmed that in multiple-debtor chapter 11 cases, the cramdown rules set forth in section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code must be applied on a per debtor basis as opposed to a per plan basis. See In re JER/Jameson Mezz Borrower II, LLC, No. 11-13338 (MFW), 2011 WL 6749058 (Bankr. D. Del. Dec. 22, 2011) (“Jameson”) and In re Tribune Co., No. 08-13141 (KJC), 2011 WL 5142420 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 31, 2011) (“Tribune”).

In my recent blog posting, I discussed the factors that courts will consider before setting aside an elected condominium board of directors to impose a court-appointed administrator.

Below are some examples where the courts have intervened and appointed an administrator. They include situations where:

On December 1 2011 the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Indalex Limited (Re) (2011 ONCA 265).(1)

Indalex Limited and its US parent sought protection from their creditors under the Companies' Creditors Arrangements Act and under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code. The court authorised a loan under a debtor-in-possession credit agreement and gave the lenders a super-priority charge against Indalex's assets.

In the last several months, there have been some significant legal developments that could impact acquisition finance. This article will survey some of the more notable ones.

In a case with implications for buyers of assets in a bankruptcy court-ordered sale under section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued a decision limiting the ability of manufacturers that are debtors in a bankruptcy case to sell assets free and clear of future liabilities.

On December 1, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Re Indalex Limited, 2011 ONCA 265, which we summarized here.

It’s been quite a week for important cases on TUPE and its operation in relation to administrations. The Court of Appeal has delivered two judgments which are of considerable importance for those contemplating and structuring transactions out of administration.

The key points to note are that:

Judge James M. Peck of the United States Bank-ruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on December 8, 2011 issued an opinion on a motion of the Lehman Brothers Inc. (“LBI”) trustee (“Trustee”) to confirm his determination that certain claims relating to settled on delivery-versus-payment “to be announced” (“TBA”) contracts do not qualify as customer claims against the LBI estate and therefore are not entitled to Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”) coverage.

The Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal yesterday in Indalex Limited (Re). This is an appeal from the Ontario Court of Appeal (2011 ONCA 265). Please see our Financial Services and Banking E-news Bulletin dated April 25, 2011, for a detailed summary of the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

On 31 October 2011, MF Global UK Limited, an insolvent investment broker, became the first investment firm to enter the special administration regime (the “SAR”) created by the Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/245).

The SAR was adopted in February 2011 following the collapse of Lehman Brothers and has the advantage over ordinary corporate administration in that it sets special objectives for the administrator and this is the first time the SAR has been used. The SAR sets three objectives for a special administrator:

The respected Financial Markets Law Committee sponsored by the Bank of England has published a paper, dated October 2011, containing an analysis of legal uncertainty in the FSA’s Client Assets Sourcebook (CASS) and arising from judicial decisions relating to the administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe).