A years-long political duel over whether California should control local government bankruptcies was resolved on October 9, 2011. Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code provides specifically for the reorganization of cities and towns, taxing districts, municipal utilities, and school districts. California Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed legislation prohibiting local municipalities from filing for bankruptcy unless they first negotiate with creditors using a “neutral evaluation process” or vote to declare a fiscal emergency after a public hearing.

As many of you know, on December 19, 2011, Saab Automobile AB and affiliated companies filed for bankruptcy in Sweden. The company issued a bulletin to its dealers that same day, announcing that it immediately suspended processing and payment of all claims, and it is suspending warranty coverage on all new Saab vehicles. What does this mean for dealers? Every dealer’s situation is different, and each dealer will have to evaluate its own circumstances based on consultation with an attorney.

• On December 20, 2011, the South Carolina Public Service Commission (SC PSC) issued a scheduling order for AT&T South Carolina’s complaint against Halo Wireless. AT&T alleges that Halo, which filed for bankruptcy protection after AT&T initiated this action and similar complaints in several other states, was sending AT&T landline-originated traffic but refused to pay terminating access charges. AT&T also alleges that Halo has been manipulating call signaling information to hide the traffic’s true origin and to make it appear as wireless-originated traffic.

In the midst of the ongoing restructurings of Nortel and AbitibiBowater, the New Democrats introduced Bill C-501 in the spring of 2010 to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) with the goal of better protecting employees’ interests in the context of formal insolvency proceedings, including pension interests. However, Bill C-501 did not become law.

Introduction

In “True Lease v. Security Lease – Is the Distinction Still Relevant?” which appeared in the June 2008 issue of Collateral Matters, Jill Fraser discussed a 2007 amendment to the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (the “PPSA”) and whether or not the distinction between a true lease and a security lease was still relevant in light of that amendment.

• On October 12, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York brought TerreStar Network’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding one step closer to conclusion by approving the debtor’s $98 million settlement with two separate creditor groups over a certain purchase money credit agreement.

The House Judiciary Committee recently heard testimony on the benefits and pitfalls of proposed legislation that would change bankruptcy venue rules by imposing limitations on where corporations may file for bankruptcy protection. The hearing came in the wake of a statement by Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, in which he asked how Enron had been able to file its bankruptcy case in Manhattan considering that Enron was based in, and had substantially all of its assets and operations in, Texas.

• On September 16, 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice amended its complaint to enjoin the AT&T/T-Mobile merger to include the states of New York, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Washington, and Ohio as additional plaintiffs. United States v. AT&T Inc., No. 11-cv-1560 (D.D.C.).
• On September 19, 2011, the United Stated District Court for the Northern District of Texas largely denied the motion to dismiss of Verizon Communications, and related entities, against claims that they defrauded investors and creditors via spinoff company Idearc.

Employers are constrained by dozens of rules and regulations limiting their hiring criteria. In today’s economy, one question that often arises is whether employers may refuse to hire bankrupt job applicants. Surprisingly, the answer for private employers may be yes.

Section 11.01 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) states that no order under Section 11 or 11.02 of the CCAA has the effect of: (a) prohibiting a person from requiring immediate payment for goods, services, the use of leased or licensed property or other valuable consideration provided after the order is made; or (b) requiring the further advance of money or credit.