There are important issues and procedures to be considered when a foreign buyer seeks to purchase the assets of a U.S. entity that is distressed or subject to a U.S. insolvency proceeding and which is involved in business activities with a nexus to U.S.

Secured creditors need to be aware of recent bankruptcy rulings that affect their rights and interests. These rulings have tested the boundaries of key concepts affecting the ability to "cramdown" and involuntarily restructure a secured creditor’s rights and the valuation of collateral. Secured creditors must therefore be mindful of these developments and risks in guiding their negotiating and litigation strategy against a cramdown threat.

It has long been standard practice for Court-appointed receivers, monitors and trustees in bankruptcy to include comprehensive disclaimer language in the reports they submit to Court in connection with insolvency proceedings. The reason is simple – these reports are relied on by the Court and other parties to the proceedings, and are often prepared using unaudited and unverified information obtained from management of the debtor company.

On April 2, 2013, Justice Mesbur of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) granted an application brought by Business Development Bank of Canada (“BDC”) for the appointment of a receiver over the assets, undertakings and properties of Pine Tree Resort Inc. and 1212360 Ontario Limited, operating as the Delawana Inn in Honey Harbour, Ontario (together, “Delawana”).

On February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) released its long-awaited decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steel Workers1 (“Indalex”). By a five to two majority, the SCC allowed the appeal from the 2011 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) which had created so much uncertainty about the relative priorities of debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) lending charges and pension claims in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) proceedings.

The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act¹ (the “CCAA”) is by far the most flexible Canadian law under which a corporation can restructure its business. When compared against theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act² (the “BIA”), the CCAA looks like a blank canvass and lends itself well to invention and mutual compromise.

In its decision published on March 13, 2013 (dated February 21, 2013 – IX ZR 32/12), the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH or Bundesgerichtshof) made it clear that it will uphold its prevailing case law regarding two questions at hand even though the relevant legal provisions relating to equitable subordination have been moved from the corporate law regime to the insolvency law regime with the 2008 Act to Modernize the Law on Private Limited Companies and Combat Abuses (MoMiG or Gesetz zur Modernisierung des GmbH-Rechts und zur Bekämpfung von Mißbräuchen).

Recently, on the eve of closing a large mortgage loan for a regional mall intended for a single asset securitization, it was determined that there was an extremely remote risk that the mortgage might not be foreclosable due to a peculiarity of the improvements on the real property and local foreclosure practices.

Numerous public-private partnerships have been formed in recent years as a device for funding infrastructure projects such as ports, toll roads and other transportation projects, sewer systems and parking garages. State and local governments, which have been strapped for cash to spend on infrastructure projects, have granted private entities the right to operate various infrastructure projects in exchange for a significant up-front payment and/or periodic payments.

On February 1, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) released its long-awaited decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steel Workers. By a five to two majority, the SCC allowed the appeal from the 2011 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) which had created so much uncertainty about the priority of pension claims in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) proceedings.