Lest you thought you had heard the end of the Stern v. Marshall debate, two recent circuit court decisions remind us that Stern is alive and influential. In October, the Sixth Circuit weighed in on a bankruptcy court’s constitutional authority where it discharged certain fraudulent debts and awarded damages. In early December, the Ninth Circuit performed a similar constitutional analysis where the bankruptcy court decided a fraudulent transfer action against a noncreditor of the bankruptcy estate.

On January 27, 2012, Justice Newbould of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) released his decision in Temple (Re),1 holding that the Ontario Limitations Act, 20022 (the “Act”) does not apply to a bankruptcy application and does not operate to extinguish a debt owing to a creditor.

The Ontario Limitations Act, 2002

Introduction

Does the dissolution of a corporation that is in receivership terminate the receivership? Until the recent decision of Meta Energy Inc. v. Algatec Solarwerke Brandenberg GMBH, 2012 ONSC 175, 2012 ONSC 4873, there was no previous court decision directly on point. The answer to the question is “no.”

Background

A recent case illustrates the importance of clarity in the contractual arrangements associated with the disposition of a debtor’s assets. In the case, the Court appointed receiver was given Court approval for an auction services agreement. Under that agreement, the auctioneer was to conduct an auction sale of the debtor’s assets and was entitled to charge and collect a buyer’s premium equal to a minimum of 12% of the sales price.

In In re Interstate Bakeries Corporation, ___ F.3d ___ (8th Cir. 2012) (IBC), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a perpetual, royalty-free trademark license was an executory contract and therefore subject to assumption or rejection by a bankruptcy debtor. This decision is at odds with a recent decision from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, In re Exide Technologies, 607 F.3d 957 (3d Cir. 2010), which found that such a license under similar circumstances was not an executory contract and could thus not be assumed or rejected by the bankruptcy debtor.

The Delaware District Court recently affirmed an appeal of an order denying millions of dollars in compensation to bankruptcy professionals due to certain provisions in a final debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing order. In re Barnes Bay Development Ltd. (“Barnes Bay”) was filed under Chapter 11 on March 17, 2011, case no 11-10792. On September 23, 2011, the bankruptcy court denied confirmation of the Chapter 11 plan.

In a recent contested matter in the case Home Valley Bancorp., Inc., Case No.

On May 24, 2012, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) dismissed with prejudice a complaint brought by AT&T California, Inc. against Fones4All Corp. in 2006. AT&T sought to recover alleged overcharges paid to Fones4All for termination of intraLATA toll traffic. Following an evidentiary hearing, the CPUC issued D.07-07-013, granting the relief AT&T requested in its complaint, or approximately $2.6 million, plus interest.

The common law has long recognized a secured creditor’s duty to provide reasonable notice to borrowers before enforcing its security and appointing a receiver. The practical importance of this has become less significant since the codification of the principle of reasonable notice in section 244 of theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”). However, in the recent case of Bank of Montreal v.

In a recent case, RBC Capital Markets, LLC v. Education Loan Trust IV et al., 2011 WL 6152282 (Del. Ch. Dec. 6, 2011), a holder of notes issued under an indenture claimed that the issuer caused the trust to pay excess and unauthorized fees that allegedly reduced the amount of interest payments to the noteholder.