When the real estate market and financial markets tumbled during 2007-2008, the fallout was felt by financial institutions from large multi-billion dollar banks to small Community Banks. As these banks struggled to stay alive, a trend emerged for bank holding companies to market and sell a distressed bank through Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. This alternative was utilized in many instances as opposed to a traditional “reorganization plan” or takeover by the FDIC.

This second installment of our series, “The Life Settlement Industry – Bankruptcy Issues”, will address two related issues:

(1) What type of interest (if any) does an investor-creditor have in a “life settlement” (i.e., a life insurance policy sold by the original owner to a third party for a value in excess of the policy’s cash surrender value, but less than its death benefit), and (2) How is the interest of an investor-creditor in a life settlement generally determined in a bankruptcy case?

The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (Court) has provided clarity on how oppression claims will be adjudicated in the context of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). In the recent decision in Lightstream Resources Ltd. (Re), the Court confirmed that it has jurisdiction to hear oppression claims, but held that the exercise of this discretion is limited to appropriate circumstances.

When businesses experience financial difficulties, it is very common for them to “rob Peter to pay Paul.” Occasionally, this takes the form of using taxes that have been withheld from employees’ paychecks to pay expenses instead of remitting those funds to the IRS. Of course, it is well known that even though such obligations are corporate, individuals within the corporation determined to be “responsible persons” will be personally liable for such taxes.

A “life settlement” is the sale of a life insurance policy to a third party for a value in excess of the policy’s cash surrender value, but less than its death benefit. The life settlement industry focuses on the purchase and sale of life settlements or fractional interests in life settlements to investors. These investors may be anyone from individuals to groups of investors, hedge funds or other institutional investors.

Ruden McClosky, P.A. (“Ruden”), a formerly large and prestigious law firm that was founded in 1959 and at its peak had more than 200 attorneys commenced a bankruptcy case by filing a petition for Chapter 11 relief (“Petition”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida on November 1, 2011. The firm was a victim of the changing economy and the Great Recession. Ruden’s practiced largely in areas serving financial institutions and real estate developers—areas particularly hard hit by the recession.

The United States Supreme Court will review a decision of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Johnson v. Midland Funding, LLC, to resolve a dispute between the circuits regarding whether the Bankruptcy Code provides the exclusive mechanism to determine the validity of a Proof of Claim or whether the filing of a faulty Proof of Claim gives rise to a debtor’s right to sue under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”). The Bankruptcy Code permits a creditor to file a claim if, among other things, the creditor has a right to payment.

The insolvency of the CHC Group and over 40 directly or indirectly owned subsidiaries (collectively, CHC) will have a large impact on Canada given the size of CHC’s operations in the country. In general, the CHC insolvency could raise a range of core Cape Town Convention/Aircraft Protocol “CTC) issues should the applicable aircraft objects be subject to CTC international interests. In Canada, however, it is our understanding that the CTC is not applicable as the relevant aircraft in Canada were financed before the CTC came into force in Canada.

The Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA) has closed the door on the application of equitable subordination in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings. In U.S. Steel Canada Inc.

La Cour d’appel de l’Ontario (la « CAO ») a fermé la porte à l’application du principe de la subordination reconnue en equity dans le contexte des procédures instituées en vertu de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies (la « LACC »). Dans l’affaire U.S. Steel Canada Inc.