A survey of recent rulings by judges from the bankruptcy courts for the Southern District of New York and the District of Delaware suggests that judges in these districts have very different views about the nature and extent of “consensual” third-party releases that may be approved in a given case. The data also indicates that their thinking on this issue continues to evolve as they confront new arguments.

A series of decisions over the past year — on issues such as make-whole premiums, intercreditor agreements, backstops for rights offerings and nonconsensual third-party releases — will likely have a significant impact in 2020 on parties involved in bankruptcy proceedings.

Fifth Circuit Reverses Course on the Enforceability of Make-Whole Premiums in Chapter 11

The number of corporate Chapter 11 filings in the United States remained relatively low in 2019. An estimated 6,000 business bankruptcies were filed (based on the data available at the time of writing), which, if it holds up as the data is finalized, is essentially flat from 2018 and down 56% from the peak reached in 2009, following the Great Recession. The chart immediately below depicts corporate Chapter 11 filing volume over time.

As we had anticipated in our prior client alerts,¹ the “customer” safe harbor defense to constructive fraudulent conveyance claims challenging securities transactions — which was flagged by the U.S.

On December 3, 2019, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) released its decision in 1732427 Ontario Inc. v. 1787930 Ontario Inc.¹ At issue was a pre-authorized debit payment processed by a supplier after a debtor filed a notice of intention to file a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”). The motion judge had found this payment to be an exercise of a creditor remedy prohibited by the stay provisions of subsection 69(1) of the BIA.

On November 14, 2019, the Alberta Court of Appeal (the “ABCA”) released its decision in PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. v. 1905393 Alberta Ltd. (“1905393 Alberta”),¹ dismissing an appeal of an approval and vesting order made in the context of a receivership proceeding.

In Canada v. Canada North Group Inc., 2019 ABCA 314, the Court of Appeal of Alberta (the “ABCA”) upheld the decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (the “Lower Court”), which held that the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) permits courts to subordinate statutory deemed trusts in favour of the Crown to court-ordered insolvency priming charges.

On November 1, 2019, a number of amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) will come into force pursuant to the Canadian federal government’s budget implementation legislation for 2018 and 2019.

Vesting orders have become one of the most powerful tools in an insolvency professional’s toolkit, providing a purchaser with the comfort that the encumbrances contributing to the debtor’s financial difficulties cannot follow to the new owner. In light of their importance, Canadian insolvency and banking professionals were understandably anxious when the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA” or the “Court”) recently asked for submissions on whether receivership vesting orders can extinguish third party interests in land in the nature of a Gross Overriding Royalty (a “GOR”).1

In an April 30, 2019 endorsement accompanying a receivership order made in the matter of Royal Bank of Canada and D.M. Robichaud Associates Ltd. (“D.M. Robichaud”), Justice Hainey of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List (the “Court”) held that the receiver’s charge and the receiver’s borrowings charge should have priority over deemed trusts under provincial construction legislation.1