Published in The Deal, January 5, 2011

The recent decision in Bank of America, NA v. Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et. al.), No. 08-13555, Adv. Pro. No. 08-01753, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 3867 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2010) has shone a 10,000-watt spotlight onto the scope of common law set-off in New York.

On December 16, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) reorganization proceedings, the Crown enjoys no super-priority status in relation to its claims for unremitted sales taxes arising under the Goods and Services Tax (the “GST”) or similar provincial sales taxes.

The aggregate costs associated with a formal court-supervised insolvency proceeding can be substantial. In Canada, the obligation to pay these restructuring costs are typically secured by court-ordered charges over all of the property of the debtor and can rank in priority to the liens of secured creditors in the same collateral. As a result, these costs can have a material impact on the ultimate net recovery received by creditors. But how is the burden of these costs shared among secured creditors?

In the recent decision in Re Xerium Technologies Inc.1, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recognized an order made by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware that confirmed the debtor’s pre-packaged Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. The decision provides useful guidance on how the Ontario Court may consider similar applications in the future. Many will take comfort from the fact that the decision revisits a number of relevant factors established in case law that pre-dates the current formulation of the cross-border provisions that make up Part IV of the CCA A.

On October 8, 2010, the FDIC approved a Proposed Rule that would implement certain provisions of its authority granted by Congress in Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act (“Title II”) to act as receiver for covered financial companies (failing financial companies that pose significant risks to the financial stability of the United States) when a Bankruptcy Code proceeding is found to be inappropriate. Prior to the enactment of the Dodd‑Frank Act on July 21, 2010, no unified statutory scheme for the orderly liquidation of covered financial companies existed.

Cow Harbour Construction Ltd1

introduction

The 2009 amendments to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (the “CCAA”) and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) codified with some modifications judge made law giving a court authority to grant super-priority priming liens to secure interim financing (or debtorin- possession financing).

The judge presiding over the bankruptcy proceeding of the operator of a Web site and magazine aimed at gay teens has approved a settlement allowing the destruction of personal information of users rather than a sale to creditors as part of the bankruptcy estate. The court approved the settlement after the Federal Trade Commission raised objections to the sale, citing the Web site sign-up confirmation page, which stated that "[w]e never give your info to anybody," and a similar statement directed to subscribers of an associated print magazine.

An increasing number of restructuring cases involve several creditors with security over varied assets or asset classes. In such cases there is often a dispute over allocation of the costs of the reorganization. This is particularly true in failed restructurings where costs are high and realizations are low.

In re Visteon Corp., No. 10-1944-cv, 2010 WL 2735715 (3d Cir. July 13, 2010), the Third Circuit held that Visteon Corporation (Visteon) could not terminate unvested retiree health and life insurance benefits during a Chapter 11 bankruptcy without seeking court approval pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 1114, 11 U.S.C. § 1114. The Third Circuit’s decision departs from the rulings of many other federal courts, and is in tension, if not outright conflict, with the Second Circuit’s decision in LTV Steel Co. v. United Mine Workers (In re Chateaugay Corp.), 945 F.2d 1205 (2d Cir.

Expect the unexpected from your Web site privacy policy. In a handful of cases, including two which were recently decided, companies have been thwarted in various, unexpected ways by the commitments made in their online privacy policies.

Are your intellectual property litigators reading your privacy policy?