In a November 17, 2016 ruling likely to impact ongoing debt restructurings, pending bankruptcy proceedings and negotiations of new debt issuances, the Third Circuit recently overturned refusals by both the Delaware bankruptcy court and district court to enforce “make-whole” payments from Energy Futures Holding Company LLC and EFIH Finance Inc. (collectively, “EFIH”) to rule that the relevant indenture provisions supported the payments. The case was remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings.

On December 1, 2016, the amendments to Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 aimed at clarifying when a secured creditor must file a payment change notice (“PCN”) in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy take effect. The new rule requires secured creditors to file PCNs on all claims secured by the Chapter 13 debtor’s primary residence for which the debtor or Chapter 13 Trustee is making post-petition payments during the bankruptcy, without regard to whether the debtor is curing a pre-petition arrearage.

In Huff Energy Fund v. Gershen, C.A. No. 11116-VCS, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a stockholder’s challenge to the board of director’s decision to dissolve the company following an asset sale. The Court ruled that the enhanced scrutiny standards of Revlon and Unocal do not supplant the business judgment rule in the context of a company’s decision to dissolve.

The tension between a trustee seeking to facilitate a proposal for the benefit of all creditors and a single creditor being forced to release its rights for the “greater good” was front and center in a recent case before the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

The Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (the “2010 Act”) finally comes into force on 1 August 2016.

The 2010 Act makes it easier for a third party to bring a claim against an insurer when the insured party has become insolvent. The 2010 Act will replace the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (the “1930 Act”) and is designed to extend and improve the rights of third party claimants.

Policyholders contemplating insurance coverage settlements with low-level insurers should use caution to preserve their ability to access higher-level excess policies. Excess insurers are increasingly disputing that underlying policies are properly exhausted where policyholders elect to settle with underlying insurers for less than full limits. The issue can be further complicated if the policyholder seeks protection under the bankruptcy laws against long-tail liabilities, as a recent case illustrates.

Earlier this year, both the lower and upper houses of Malaysia’s parliament, passed the Companies Bill 2015 (“theBill”) which will harmonise Malaysia's insolvency laws and bring them more in line with modern international standards. Once the Bill comes into effect (it is currently awaiting Royal Assent), it will replace Malaysia’s existing Companies Act 1965.

A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice serves as a reminder for secured lenders of the importance of perfecting a security interest by registration. Absent perfection, collateral is at risk of seizure by judgment creditors of the borrower. Perfection, however, insures that a creditor has a priority interest in collateral over any subsequent judgment creditor. The decision also shows the importance to vendors of conducting continuous diligence on customers when credit is being extended on a regular basis.

Backround

On October 7, 2015, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed the Supreme Court of British Columbia's decision in Barafield Realty Ltd. v. Just Energy (B.C.) Limited Partnership ["Barafield Realty"].¹ In July of 2014, we wrote the attached bulletin http://www.mcmillan.ca/Assigning-contracts-in-Canadian-insolvency-proceedings on the lower court decision.

As discussed in our May 2016 bulletin, New Rules for Asset Sales by Insolvent Producers (at least for now), the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta in Re Redwater Energy Corporation, 2016 ABQB 278 ("Redwater") determined that provisions of the provincial legislation governing the actions of licensees of oil and gas assets did not apply to receivers and trustees in bankruptcy of insolvent companies, given the paramountcy of the Bank