The Eleventh Circuit has revisited the question of when a debtor may be judicially estopped from pursuing a civil lawsuit due to his or her failure to disclose the claims forming the basis of the lawsuit in their bankruptcy. Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine intended to protect courts against parties who seek to manipulate the judicial process by changing their legal positions to suit the exigencies of the moment.

This is the second instalment in a series examining large retail insolvencies in Canada from the perspective of various stakeholders. The Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA) is the principal statute for the reorganization or sale of large corporate debtors in Canada and the functional equivalent to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Chapter 11) in the United States. Accordingly, our series focuses on CCAA proceedings, with references to alternate insolvency proceedings where applicable.

Voici le premier d’une série d’articles portant sur l’insolvabilité de grands détaillants au Canada considérée sous divers angles. La Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies (Canada) (la « LACC ») est le principal texte de loi qui régit la réorganisation ou la vente de grandes sociétés débitrices au Canada; il est l’équivalent du chapitre 11 du U.S. Bankruptcy Code (le « chapitre 11 »).

Last year, Burr & Forman lawyers won a decisive victory in the Eleventh Circuit, in the case of In re Failla, 838 F.3d 1170 (11th Cir. 2016). In Failla, the Eleventh Circuit held that a debtor who files a statement of intention to “surrender” his or her house in bankruptcy may not oppose the secured creditor’s foreclosure proceeding in state court. Failla is a significant victory for secured creditors for two primary reasons. First, the Eleventh Circuit interpreted the meaning of “surrender,” as used in 11 U.S.C.

Signed, sealed, delivered, but am I yours? Apparently not, according to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, at least in the context of allowed administrative expense claims under Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code.1 The Third Circuit recently considered and ruled in a case as to when goods are deemed “received” for the purposes of determining whether a creditor may recover the value of the goods as an allowed administrative expense claim under the Bankruptcy Code.

This article is the first instalment in a series examining large retail insolvencies in Canada from the perspective of various stakeholders. The Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA) is the principal statute for the reorganization, or sale, of large corporate debtors in Canada and the functional equivalent to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Chapter 11) in the United States. Accordingly, our series focuses on CCAA proceedings, with references to alternate insolvency proceedings where applicable.

On June 16, 2017, Canada’s Department of Finance and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) published for comments a package of draft regulations and guidelines setting out the final details of Canada’s bail-in framework and related total loss absorbency capacity (TLAC) capital standard for Canada’s six domestic systemically important banks (DSIBs). The bail-in regulations are expected to be finalized in the fall of 2017 and will take effect 180 days later.

In a recent case1 out of the bankruptcy court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Court”), a secured creditor moved to dismiss a debtor’s bankruptcy case “for cause” based on the debtor’s bad faith filing.2 The debtor owned certain commercial real estate in south Florida (the “Commercial Property”) and leased space to various tenants, one of which had recently applied for both state and federal licenses to sell medical marijuana.3 The secured creditor had a first-position mortgage on the Commercial Property.4 After a decade-long lending relationship soured, the debtor initiated a len

In a 5-3 decision written by Justice Stephen G.

In Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a debt collector does not run afoul of the FDCPA by filing a proof of claim in bankruptcy on a stale debt.