As previously discussed here, Ambac Financial Group Inc. has filed for bankruptcy for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief with United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Immediately following its bankruptcy filing, Ambac sued the United States to block the Internal Revenue Service from placing a lien on its assets in an attempt to recover an estimated $700 million in tax refunds that the agency believes it may be owed.

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?

As we first covered here, Ambac Financial Group Inc., the parent of the ailing Wisconsin-domiciled bond insurer Ambac Assurance Corp., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief with United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on November 8, 2010.

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.

In another instalment of the Scottish Lion saga (see our previous blog entries here, here and here) the Outer House of the Court of Session (the Scottish First Instance Court) has ruled that where a scheme creditor submits documents in support of his claim fo

Ambac Financial Group Inc., parent of the troubled Wisconsin-domiciled bond insurer Ambac Assurance Corp., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief on November 8, 2010. As was alluded to in our blog post last week, Ambac has been unable to raise additional capital or come to terms with its debt holders. Additionally, while Ambac had originally sought to enter bankruptcy as part of a prepackaged agreement, this too failed. Ambac’s bankruptcy filing comes amid a recent disclosure it made in a filing with the U.S.

Ambac Financial Group Inc., parent of the troubled bond insurer Ambac Assurance Corp., said Monday that it is pursuing the restructuring of its debt with a group of debt holders through a pre-packaged bankruptcy filing. The Company added that if it is unable to reach a debt restructuring agreement, it will file for bankruptcy by the end of this year. The Company's statement can be read by clicking here.

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.

It is reported in the press that the PWC administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) Limited (LBIE), the London-based arm of the Lehman bank, are to appeal the recent Court of Appeal ruling relating to the distribution of segregated client funds. The first instance judge held that those clients of LBIE whose funds should have been segregated, but were not, were not entitled to share in the pot of client money. This follows normal trust law. The Court of Appeal reversed this ruling, on the basis of its construction of the client money rules.