On April 7, 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its judgment in theRe Indalex Limited case (Indalex).1 The decision addresses the interplay between the deemed trust provision in the Ontario Pension and Benefits Act (PBA)2 and the federal Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA),3 as well as the fiduciary duties of pension plan administrators in CCAA proceedings. Indalex is important for pension plan sponsors and administrators for a number of reasons:

On April 7, 2011, in the context of a liquidating CCAA that achieved a going concern sale of the debtor’s business, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that:

Recent regulations confirm that the GST/HST deemed trust has priority over all security interests and charges except for land or building charges. That exception has its own limitations. It is limited to the amount owing to the secured creditor at the time the tax debtor failed to remit the GST/HST. It also forces the secured creditor to look first to its other security; a kind of forced marshalling.

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that a creditor of a bankrupt corporation may assert alter ego claims against the corporation’s sole shareholders. The California Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District not only supports the Ninth Circuit’s decision but has recently taken it one step further, holding that alter ego allegations are not even subject to the automatic bankruptcy stay.

On December 16, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada ( SCC) released its decision in Re Ted Leroy Trucking Ltd. In its decision, the SCC affirmed the importance of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) as a flexible restructuring tool, and clarified the source and limits of the Court’s authority during CCAA proceedings. Furthermore, the Court overruled the judgment of the B.C.

Reclamation claimants have long enjoyed special protections under Bankruptcy Code section 546(c), which recognizes that “the rights and powers of a trustee... are subject to the right of a seller of goods,” including reclamation rights under Section 2-702 of the Uniform Commercial Code. At a minimum, Section 2-702 clearly requires that a reclamation claimant must make demand upon its buyer in order to reclaim its goods and protect its rights. However, Paramount Home Entertainment Inc. v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 2010 WL 3522089 (ED Va., Sept.

On October 26, 2010, the British Columbia Court of Appeal (the Court) released its decision in Canadian Petcetera Limited Partnership v. 2876 R Holdings Ltd., 2010 BCCA 469 (Petcetera), an important case that addresses the rights of landlords when a tenant has filed a Notice of Intention to make a proposal (NOI) under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the BIA).

• On August 4, 2010, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a Wisconsin federal district court’s ruling on the Wisconsin bankruptcy court’s disposition of three of Telephone and Data Systems’ (TDS) claims, and the FCC’s objections thereto, filed in Airadigm’s Chapter 11 reorganization plan. The principal assets at issue were a series of C- and F-block spectrum licenses for mobile phone service in certain areas of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan that Airadigm had won at auction in the late 1990s.

With the August 4, 2010 auction of the division leading Texas Rangers looming and the memory of last year's bankruptcy sale of the Phoenix Coyotes fresh in our minds, there has been a lot of discussion among bankruptcy professionals about the unique issues that arise when a sports club files for bankruptcy. Generally, sports clubs file bankruptcy for the same reasons as other businesses — as a last resort to save going concern value and/or to avail themselves of some strategic advantage under the Bankruptcy Code.

In the recent decision of Justice Cumming In the Matter of the Proposal of Hypnotic Clubs Inc. (“Hypnotic” or the “Debtor”) the court dismissed a motion by the Debtor for a sale of its assets pursuant to s.65.13 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”).