Given the spate of bankruptcies filed over the last few years, including by large-scale tenants such as Borders, Linens 'n Things, and Circuit City, and the tenuous financial condition of big-box retailers such as Best Buy, it is important for both landlords and tenants to understand the benefits and limitations of bankruptcy protection as it relates to the status of a bankrupt tenant’s leasehold interest.

In somewhat related news, in two recent New York Supreme Court rulings, judges upheld the validity of “bad boy” guarantees that included as non-recourse exceptions or “bad boy” acts under the guarantee a voluntary bankruptcy filing by the borrower.

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.

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.

On September 13, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation approved a final rule requiring certain financial institutions to prepare a plan for their dismantling in the event of material financial distress or failure.

In a recent decision1 involving TerreStar Networks, Inc., and its affiliates (“TerreStar” or the “Debtors”), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that the Debtors’ noteholders held a valid lien on the economic value of a license granted to TerreStar by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) and that nothing in Article 9 of the New York Uniform Commercial Code (the “NYUCC”) or Section 552 of the Bankruptcy Code invalidated that lien.

Section 11.01 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) states that no order under Section 11 or 11.02 of the CCAA has the effect of: (a) prohibiting a person from requiring immediate payment for goods, services, the use of leased or licensed property or other valuable consideration provided after the order is made; or (b) requiring the further advance of money or credit.

As most are aware by now, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) recently caused alarm by finding that claims of pension plan beneficiaries ranked higher than the super-priority debtor-in-possession financing charge (the “DIP Charge”) created by the amended initial order (the “CCAA Order”) in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) proceedings of the Indalex group of Canadian companies (collectively, “Indalex”).

During the past 14 months, courts in Ontario have rendered three decisions dealing with the application of limitation periods to claims for fraudulent conveyances or preferences. A “limitation period” is a period of time, specified in a statute, within which a plaintiff must commence a court proceeding to seek a remedy. Otherwise, the claim is said to be “statute-barred” and an action to enforce the claim will be dismissed.

The recent decisions have brought some clarity to the law in this area, but have left other questions unanswered.

Background