After filing more than 275 copyright infringement lawsuits, it now turns out that Righthaven was not the owner of the copyrights asserted in the lawsuit, and as a result is now on the verge of bankruptcy. The copyright infringement claims were made for reposting pictures and stories previously published by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, owned by Stephens Media.

Sunrise, sunset. Perhaps a matchmaker would have helped. The saga of the dispute between Ventas, Inc. and Health Care Property Investors, Inc. arose five years ago when Sunrise Senior Living Real Estate Investment Trust’s "board of trustees determined that a strategic sale process of its assets would be beneficial to its unitholders, thus effectively putting Sunrise ‘in play’ on the public markets" (per Blair J.A. for the Ontario Court of Appeal) in Ventas, Inc. v.

Several states have recently added provisions to their insurance rehabilitation and liquidation acts which address the rights of parties to certain derivatives transactions with an insurance company in the event that an order of rehabilitation or liquidation is entered against the insurer. In short, these laws allow parties to exercise certain early termination and close-out netting provisions without regard to the applicable stay mechanism under state insurance insolvency law.

Sometimes state legislatures react slowly to judge-made law and sometimes they move swiftly to correct perceived problems created by court rulings. Often, such rash legislative action is not well thought-out or properly drafted, making the solution worse than the fix. However, in Florida, within one legislative session, the Florida Legislature and governor considered and enacted a set of amendments to Florida's limited liability statute that hopefully will signal the business community that Florida knows how to pass laws that make sense.

A recent Alberta appellate decision establishes that a trustee in bankruptcy may sell a franchise agreement to a third party, in spite of objections by the franchisor, under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA). The Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision in Ford Motor Company of Canada Ltd v Welcome Ford Sales Ltd contains three important messages for franchisors:

The Supreme Court of Canada decision in Century Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), which arose from the restructuring proceedings of Ted LeRoy Trucking Ltd. and was released on December 6, 2010, is a landmark decision in Canadian insolvency law.

In a client update released earlier this month, we discussed the recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in the CCAA proceedings of Indalex Limited. In that case, the Court decided that Indalex’s pension plan wind-up deficiency claims had priority over Indalex’s CCAA secured lender in the context of that case. Of concern is the "chill" that decision may have on secured lending in Ontario to borrowers that sponsor defined benefit pension plans.

This week, the Ontario Court of Appeal surprised many by deciding that in the context of the CCAA proceedings of Indalex, pension plan deficiency claims can have priority over security held by secured DIP lenders. The Court granted priority for the entire wind-up deficiency of two pension plans over the DIP lender’s security. If not reversed on appeal, the ruling creates a potential worst case scenario for secured lenders in Ontario and could affect availability of credit for all employers who provide defined benefit pension plans for their employees.

On March 16, 2011, a Rhode Island Superior Court heard arguments on whether Rhode Island's solvent restructuring statute violates the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The case stems from a global commutation plan developed pursuant to this statute by GTE Reinsurance Company Limited in order to settle all of its obligations under various property and casualty risks reinsured by GTE Re decades ago. Critics contend that the Rhode Island law enables policies and contracts to be modified without policyholder consent in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

In In re Rodriguez, No. 09-2724 (3rd Cir. Dec 23, 2010), a three-judge panel for the Third Circuit considered whether an automatic stay under the Bankruptcy Code prevented a mortgage servicer from accounting for a pre-petition shortage on a mortgage escrow account in its post-petition calculation of the bankrupt debtors’ future monthly escrow payments. The majority held that the bankruptcy stay did prohibit such conduct by the loan servicer.