As solar industry observers will already know, on April 21st, 2016, (the “Filing Date”) SunEdison, Inc. (“SunEdison”) and several of its U.S. and international subsidiaries (the "SunEdison Group") filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Chapter 11 Proceedings”)in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “ US Bankruptcy Court”).¹

Frequently a debtor’s assets are sold out of bankruptcy “free and clear” of liens and claims under §363(f).  While the Bankruptcy Code imposes limits on this ability to sell assets, it does allow the sale free and clear if “such interest is in bona fide dispute” or if the price is high enough or the holder of the adverse interest “could be compelled ... to accept a money satisfaction of such interest” or if nonbankruptcy law permits such sale free and clear of such interest.

On February 5, 2016 the IRS released Chief Counsel Advice Memorandum Number 201606027 (the IRS Memo) concluding that “bad boy guarantees” may cause nonrecourse financing to become, for tax purposes, the sole recourse debt of the guarantor. This can dramatically affect the tax basis and at-risk investment of the borrowing entity’s partners or members. Non-recourse liability generally increases the tax basis and at-risk investment of all parties but recourse liability increases only that of the guarantor.

36728    Enmax Power Corporation, Altalink Management Ltd., in its capacity as general partner of Altalink, L.P., EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. v. Alberta Utilities Commission, Office of the Utilities Consumer Advocate of Alberta

- and between -

FortisAlberta Inc., Altagas Utilities Inc., ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd., ATCO Electric Ltd. v. Alberta Utilities Commission, Office of the Utilities Consumer Advocate of Alberta

The Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment (the “Convention”) and theProtocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters specific to Aircraft Equipment (the “Protocol” collectively with the Convention, the “Cape Town Convention”) signed on November 16, 2001 establish a special regime for the protection of certain interests in aircraft objects (within the meaning given to such term in the Cape Town Convention, an “Aircraft Object”), and

Trust claims against a borrower’s assets are something that no secured creditor wants to be confronted with. Such claims are often unexpected because they are, for the most part, undetectable. They lurk in the shadows, out of the reach of traditional due diligence measures and PPSA searches. As a result, even the most prudent of creditors can sometimes find themselves facing these undocumented and unquantifiable claims.

A recent Alberta case1 has addressed the proposed use of a plan of arrangement under theCanada Business Corporations Act (“CBCA”) where proceedings under insolvency statutes may be more appropriate.  In Connacher Oil, Connacher Oil and Gas Limited (“Connacher”) and 9171665 Canada Ltd.

A long-honored concept in real property, that of “covenants running with the land,” is finding its way into the bankruptcy courts. If a covenant (a promise) runs with the land then it burdens or benefits particular real property and will be binding on the successor owner; if that covenant does not run with the land then it is personal and binds those who promised but does not impose itself on a successor owner.

We are often asked what to do if you have an operating agreement and your operator or one of the other working interest owners files for bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Code allows the debtor to assume or reject the JOA (it is usually an executory contract).

Introduction

A recent decision of the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner (OPC) highlights the potentially broad application of the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA).1