The tension between a trustee seeking to facilitate a proposal for the benefit of all creditors and a single creditor being forced to release its rights for the “greater good” was front and center in a recent case before the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Like most companies that file for chapter 11 protection, many debtors in the health care industry may have outstanding liabilities that have not been finally adjudicated as of the petition date. This can include tort claims based on allegations of medical malpractice, elder abuse, patient dumping, violations of a patient’s bill of right or various other allegations of improper care. Bankruptcy courts can estimate the value of these claims to facilitate the speedy confirmation of a debtor’s plan without subjecting the debtor to a lengthy trial during its restructuring.

Ever since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided Zeig v. Mass. Bonding & Insurance Co. in 1928, it has been well-settled that a policyholder can compromise a disputed claim with its insurer for less than the full limits of the policy without putting its rights to excess coverage at risk.

A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice serves as a reminder for secured lenders of the importance of perfecting a security interest by registration. Absent perfection, collateral is at risk of seizure by judgment creditors of the borrower. Perfection, however, insures that a creditor has a priority interest in collateral over any subsequent judgment creditor. The decision also shows the importance to vendors of conducting continuous diligence on customers when credit is being extended on a regular basis.

Backround

On October 7, 2015, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed the Supreme Court of British Columbia's decision in Barafield Realty Ltd. v. Just Energy (B.C.) Limited Partnership ["Barafield Realty"].¹ In July of 2014, we wrote the attached bulletin http://www.mcmillan.ca/Assigning-contracts-in-Canadian-insolvency-proceedings on the lower court decision.

As discussed in our May 2016 bulletin, New Rules for Asset Sales by Insolvent Producers (at least for now), the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta in Re Redwater Energy Corporation, 2016 ABQB 278 ("Redwater") determined that provisions of the provincial legislation governing the actions of licensees of oil and gas assets did not apply to receivers and trustees in bankruptcy of insolvent companies, given the paramountcy of the Bank

In Alberta, regulations have historically prohibited purchasers of oil and gas assets from cherry picking operating interests in economic properties while leaving behind interests in uneconomic wells. This has had a significant negative impact on the ability of a receiver or trustee to market and sell assets owned by insolvent companies and on the prices those assets are able to attract.

Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the Bankruptcy Court and United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida determination that the authorized swapping of parts among aircraft to maximize efficiency “did not and could not commingle the participants’ ownership interests.” In re Avantair Inc., No. 15-10303, slip op. (Eleventh Circuit, February 3, 2016). The ruling helps to clarify uncertainties regarding the legal status of fractional ownership arrangements.

Brief Overview

Bad news for midstream counterparties of bankrupt oil & gas producers: you may not be able to rely (as much as you might have expected) on covenants “running with the land” to save your contracts from rejection in bankruptcy.

Recent court filings highlight the need for health care providers to protect patient privacy by implementing specific procedures when filing claims in bankruptcy cases of their patients, as a matter of federal bankruptcy and other law. Last year, WakeMed, a Raleigh, North Carolina-based health care system, asserted a claim for $553.00 for unpaid medical services in a chapter 13 consumer bankruptcy case.