To the extent authorized by a State, Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code allows municipalities (defined as a “political subdivision or public agency or instrumentality”) of that State – including public hospitals – to reorganize their debts in the face of insolvency. Municipalities achieve this goal through implementation of a court-approved plan of adjustment. Although the standards for confirming (approving) a Chapter 9 plan resemble the well-established standards for confirming a Chapter 11 plan, differences exist.

Secured creditors should take note of Callidus,¹ wherein the Federal Court (the “Court”) held that the bankruptcy of a tax debtor rendered a statutory deemed trust under section 222 of the Excise Tax Act (the “ETA”) ineffective as against a secured creditor who, prior to the bankruptcy, received proceeds from the tax debtor’s assets.

Background

Working with distressed businesses always presents a wide array of challenges. Solving a distressed company’s problems, or your problems with it, rarely is limited to a single legal discipline, set of laws or state or federal policy. When a distressed enterprise is involved, all kinds of interests and policies can and do clash.

In Aventura², a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”), the Honourable Justice Penny confirmed that a bankruptcy trustee does not have the authority, pursuant to section 30(1)(k) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”), to disclaim a lease on behalf of a bankrupt landlord. Rather, a trustee’s authority to disclaim a lease is limited to situations where the bankrupt is the tenant.

On October 13, 2015, the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the “Court”) dismissed the so-called “interest stops rule” appeal in the Nortel matter,^[1] thereby confirming that the rule applies in proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”). The Court’s decision also appears to eliminate any suggestion that the rule only applies to so-called “liquidating” CCAA proceedings.

Be careful what you’ve promised your customers…or what has been promised about data you buy!

On May 1, 2015, the Alberta Court of Appeal rendered its decision in 1773907 Alberta Ltd. v. Davidson, 2015 ABCA 150, and allowed an appeal permitting an action, brought in the name of an insolvent company, to proceed, notwithstanding that the company had assigned this claim to a third party. As will be discussed, the assignment of an action to a third party is often found to be caught by the doctrines of champerty and maintenance, and the decision by the Court serves to identify where such an assignment will be permitted.

On May 4, 2015, Vice Chancellor Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a decision in Quadrant Structured Products Co., Ltd. v. Vertin,¹ analyzing creditors’ standing to bring derivative claims against directors and officers of Delaware corporations. Building on the Delaware Supreme Court’s jurisprudence regarding fiduciary duties owed to creditors,²Vice Chancellor Laster’s opinion has two primary holdings.

On June 6, 2014, Justice Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) released additional reasons¹ to his decision in Romspen Investment Corp. v. 6711162 Canada Inc., 2014 ONSC 2781, centred on the cost submissions made by counsel to Romspen Investment Corp. (“Romspen”). Despite a contractual provision in a mortgage agreement that gave the applicant, Romspen, a right to full indemnity costs from the respondents, Justice Brown found that the legal fees incurred by counsel to Romspen were unreasonable.

Factoring is a common way for businesses to monetize current assets. Typically, in a factoring transaction, an enterprise sells its accounts receivable to a third party (commonly a bank, but not always), which, in exchange for a discount on the value of the receivables, takes on the effort and time commitment related to collecting the accounts.