It will be almost Christmas before we know, at least for portfolio companies that can file in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court. The case that will provide guidance is Friendly Ice Cream Corp., where Sun Capital, which is both equity owner and term lender, put Friendly into Chapter 11 on October 5, 2011. It did so after agreeing to a Section 363 purchase agreement with Friendly that would allow a Sun affiliate to buy assets (including desirable lease locations) free and clear by credit bidding outstanding pre-petition term debt owed to Sun.

Generally speaking, the policy of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) is not to interfere with secured creditors, leaving them free to realize upon their security. While this makes sense in the abstract, the question that is most often posed by secured creditors is “what does this mean in a practical sense?  What exactly do I need to do to retrieve my secured asset?”

A recent opinion by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York affirms a 2010 ruling by the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy court, which rendered certain netting and setoff provisions unenforceable in bankruptcy. The core holding – that a counterparty cannot offset pre-petition and post-petition amounts – should come as no surprise to market participants.

On January 25, 2011, Lehman Brothers filed an amended version of its plan of liquidation (the Plan). Contrasted against its predecessor version, the Plan creates some winners and some losers in terms of the percentage of projected payouts to creditors of various Lehman entities. More important than the percentage distribution, however, may be the means by which the debtors seek to fix a creditor’s claim amount. With regard to claims based on derivatives contracts, Lehman proposes to take a novel – and for holders of those claims, potentially alarming – approach.

Perimeter Transportation Ltd. (Re), 2010 BCCA 509, on appeal from 2009 BCSC 1458

Century Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2010 SCC 60

Section 222(3) of the Excise Tax Act creates a deemed trust for unremitted GST, which operates despite any other act of Canada, except the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. However section 18.3(1) of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the "CCAA") provides that any statutory deemed trust in favour of the Crown does not operate under the CCAA, subject to certain exceptions which do not mention GST.

Outdoor Broadcast Networks Inc (Re), 2010 ONSC 5647

The debtor had filed a notice of intention to make a proposal (“NOI”) to its creditors under the BIA. It was proposing to immediately sell certain assets in Ontario and BC to help it fund its proposal. As the proposal had not yet been made, the debtor was the one selling assets out of the ordinary course, and the sale was subject to the Ontario Bulk Sales Act. That Act does not apply to sales by bankruptcy trustees, receivers, sheriffs, or other liquidators for the benefit of creditors.

Century Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] S.C.C.A. No. 259, on appeal from (2009) 319 D.L.R. (4th) 735 (BCCA)

The union on behalf of the unionized employees of Ted Leroy Trucking Ltd., the bankrupt employer, had applied to the B.C.S.C. for directions and obtained a decision of that Court that the “wages” protected under the WEPPA “superpriority” for unpaid employees included amounts paid by the employer to third parties on behalf of the employees.

The December 2009 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Peterborough (City) v. Kawartha Native Housing Society Inc. is significant in clarifying the right of the boards of directors of non-profit corporations in receivership to retain legal counsel and pay legal fees out of the corporation’s funds. The case arose out of the contested receivership of two non-profit First Nations social housing corporations.

Where a tenant becomes insolvent, landlords are often faced with a courtappointed Receiver inserted in place of the insolvent debtor who wishes to operate the tenant’s business or conduct a sale of assets on site. While the landlord may be able to successfully negotiate payment of occupation rent, a common issue that arises iswho is responsible for any damages to the leased premises? A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in General Motors Corporation v.