Lest you thought you had heard the end of the Stern v. Marshall debate, two recent circuit court decisions remind us that Stern is alive and influential. In October, the Sixth Circuit weighed in on a bankruptcy court’s constitutional authority where it discharged certain fraudulent debts and awarded damages. In early December, the Ninth Circuit performed a similar constitutional analysis where the bankruptcy court decided a fraudulent transfer action against a noncreditor of the bankruptcy estate.

On July 6, 2012, in Lightsquared LP (Re),¹ the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Ontario Court"), released reasons that clarify the criteria for the identification of the centre of main interest ("COMI") of an applicant seeking recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings as "Foreign Main Proceedings" pursuant to Section 46 of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act ("CCAA").²

introduction

In In re Interstate Bakeries Corporation, ___ F.3d ___ (8th Cir. 2012) (IBC), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a perpetual, royalty-free trademark license was an executory contract and therefore subject to assumption or rejection by a bankruptcy debtor. This decision is at odds with a recent decision from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, In re Exide Technologies, 607 F.3d 957 (3d Cir. 2010), which found that such a license under similar circumstances was not an executory contract and could thus not be assumed or rejected by the bankruptcy debtor.

The Delaware District Court recently affirmed an appeal of an order denying millions of dollars in compensation to bankruptcy professionals due to certain provisions in a final debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing order. In re Barnes Bay Development Ltd. (“Barnes Bay”) was filed under Chapter 11 on March 17, 2011, case no 11-10792. On September 23, 2011, the bankruptcy court denied confirmation of the Chapter 11 plan.

The British Columbia Supreme Court recently reviewed the considerations to be applied on an application by a secured creditor to lift a stay of proceedings granted in an initial order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (the "CCAA"). In Re Azure Dynamics Corp.,¹ Madam Justice Fitzpatrick confirmed that the classic "doomed to fail" argument will not be persuasive where the applicant creditor is not prejudiced, and where the objectives of the CCAA are best served, by allowing the stay of proceedings to continue.

background

In a recent contested matter in the case Home Valley Bancorp., Inc., Case No.

On May 14, 2012, in 9-Ball Interests Inc. v. Traditional Life Sciences Inc.¹, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Court") rendered another decision that demonstrates the importance of full disclosure and transparency in applications made to the Court.

A year after the uncertainty created in the Canadian corporate debt financing world by the Ontario Court of Appeal's pensions-friendly decision in the Indalex CCAA restructuring matter², the Quebec Superior Court, in April 2012, determined in a lengthy and well-reasoned decision that the key restructuring and pensions law principles underpinning Indalex do not apply in Quebec when considering the treatment of defined benefit amortization payment and deficit claims in a restructuring.

On May 24, 2012, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) dismissed with prejudice a complaint brought by AT&T California, Inc. against Fones4All Corp. in 2006. AT&T sought to recover alleged overcharges paid to Fones4All for termination of intraLATA toll traffic. Following an evidentiary hearing, the CPUC issued D.07-07-013, granting the relief AT&T requested in its complaint, or approximately $2.6 million, plus interest.