The United States Bankruptcy Court recently denied confirmation of a bankruptcy plan even though it found that the plan's global settlement was "fair and reasonable."1 Why? Because the plan's releases were too broad and "unreasonable" for many of the constituents. The case provides a pointed lesson to creditors and debtors alike — pay attention to the releases; overdoing it may sink the whole ship.

On December 16, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) reorganization proceedings, the Crown enjoys no super-priority status in relation to its claims for unremitted sales taxes arising under the Goods and Services Tax (the “GST”) or similar provincial sales taxes.

The aggregate costs associated with a formal court-supervised insolvency proceeding can be substantial. In Canada, the obligation to pay these restructuring costs are typically secured by court-ordered charges over all of the property of the debtor and can rank in priority to the liens of secured creditors in the same collateral. As a result, these costs can have a material impact on the ultimate net recovery received by creditors. But how is the burden of these costs shared among secured creditors?

In the recent decision in Re Xerium Technologies Inc.1, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recognized an order made by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware that confirmed the debtor’s pre-packaged Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. The decision provides useful guidance on how the Ontario Court may consider similar applications in the future. Many will take comfort from the fact that the decision revisits a number of relevant factors established in case law that pre-dates the current formulation of the cross-border provisions that make up Part IV of the CCA A.

On August 4, 2010, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division extended equitable principles previously applied in mortgage foreclosure cases to how far an unsecured judgment creditor could go to satisfy its lien against a debtor, deciding to follow a line of cases standing for the principal that “even in the absence of express statutory authorization, a court has inherent equitable authority to allow a fair market value credit in order to prevent a double recovery by a creditor against a debtor.” Moreover, in the case, MMU of New York, Inc. v.

Cow Harbour Construction Ltd1

introduction

The 2009 amendments to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (the “CCAA”) and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) codified with some modifications judge made law giving a court authority to grant super-priority priming liens to secure interim financing (or debtorin- possession financing).

An increasing number of restructuring cases involve several creditors with security over varied assets or asset classes. In such cases there is often a dispute over allocation of the costs of the reorganization. This is particularly true in failed restructurings where costs are high and realizations are low.

Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code is intended to allow financially stressed debtors to restructure their debt obligations through a plan of reorganization. Typically, a Chapter 11 plan places different types of claims in different classes and, subject to various requirements of the Bankruptcy Code, allows the debtor to pay only portions of the claims (and in certain circumstances not to pay certain claims at all). Moreover, the Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor the flexibility to structure a plan to defer the payment of certain claims.

Ontario Court Stays Retaliatory Action brought against Bank

Financial institutions seeking to enforce a debt or guarantee through bankruptcy or other court proceedings are sometimes faced with meritless retaliatory court actions brought by debtors attempting to frustrate or further delay payment. In general, Ontario courts will not compel parties to litigate the same dispute on multiple fronts. Instead, one proceeding will be temporarily stayed pending resolution of the other where the same core issues are raised in both.

In a recent decision in the Chapter 11 case of Project Orange Associates, LLC1, the court confronted an important issue that often arises in bankruptcy cases: whether the use of conflicts counsel is sufficient to permit court approval under section 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code of a debtor’s choice for general bankruptcy counsel that also represents an important creditor of the debtor in unrelated matters. Here, the conflict involved the debtor's largest unsecured creditor and an essential supplier.