A recent case illustrates the importance of clarity in the contractual arrangements associated with the disposition of a debtor’s assets. In the case, the Court appointed receiver was given Court approval for an auction services agreement. Under that agreement, the auctioneer was to conduct an auction sale of the debtor’s assets and was entitled to charge and collect a buyer’s premium equal to a minimum of 12% of the sales price.

The Government must provide actual notice of forfeiture proceedings to those the Government knows have claimed an interest in property to be forfeited.  In a fact pattern the Sixth Circuit characterized as "befitting a John Grisham novel," the Government dug up (literally) a fraudster’s $250,000 on a golf course.  The Government found the money in October 2009 and instituted forfeiture proceedings.  In November and December 2009, the Government posted a generalized notice of forfeiture on the internet.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) filed an objection on June 14, 2012, in the Delaware bankruptcy court proceedings of RG Steel ("Debtor"), challenging a recent sale by RG Steel's parent entity ("Parent") of a 25-percent ownership stake in the Debtor. If the sale is respected, Parent would fall outside of the Debtor's "controlled group" under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), with the result that Parent may cease to have joint liability for the Debtor's unfunded pension obligations.

Where an insured has assigned away its rights to recover available insurance, the insured’s “empty shoes” do not necessarily prevent an excess carrier that pays defense costs rightfully owed by primary carriers from pursuing the primary carriers based a contractual subrogation theory.  An excess carrier proceeding on this basis typically “stands in the shoes of the insured,” obtaining only those rights held by the insured.  Nonetheless, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found last week that where an excess carrier picks up the bill for an insured’s defense, it may recover fr

The common law has long recognized a secured creditor’s duty to provide reasonable notice to borrowers before enforcing its security and appointing a receiver. The practical importance of this has become less significant since the codification of the principle of reasonable notice in section 244 of theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”). However, in the recent case of Bank of Montreal v.

On February 8, 2012, the Pennsylvania Insurance Department (the “Department”) announced that the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court approved its petition to liquidate First Sealord Surety Insurance. 

According to the Department's Commissioner, Michael Consedine, the Department petitioned the Commonwealth Court for a liquidation order because “First Sealord Surety is no longer able to meet its policyholder obligations or pay its debts as they come due.”

In the midst of the ongoing restructurings of Nortel and AbitibiBowater, the New Democrats introduced Bill C-501 in the spring of 2010 to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) with the goal of better protecting employees’ interests in the context of formal insolvency proceedings, including pension interests. However, Bill C-501 did not become law.

Introduction

In “True Lease v. Security Lease – Is the Distinction Still Relevant?” which appeared in the June 2008 issue of Collateral Matters, Jill Fraser discussed a 2007 amendment to the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (the “PPSA”) and whether or not the distinction between a true lease and a security lease was still relevant in light of that amendment.

Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) Secretary C. Alan Walker filed a petition with the Commonwealth Court to appoint David Unkovic as the receiver for the financially distressed state capital, Harrisburg.

The city’s failure to come to an agreement on an acceptable recovery plan has forced the commonwealth to take this action,‖ Governor Tom Corbett said in a statement. ―As more time goes by without action, the city’s financial situation continues to get worse.‖

Governor Corbett is almost certain to sign legislation that places a Receiver in charge of Harrisburg‟s finances after the House agreed to Senate changes and sent the bill to the Governor‟s desk.

The General Assembly acted despite a recent move by Harrisburg City Council to file for bankruptcy. The architects of the Harrisburg „Receiver‟ plan, State Rep. Glen Grell, R-Cumberland and State Senator Jeff Piccola, R-Dauphin, both maintain that the bankruptcy move was illegal.