On June 9, 2014, a unanimous Supreme Court issued the latest in a series of key rulings regarding the extent of a bankruptcy court’s constitutional authority.¹ Notably, while Monday’s Executive Benefitsdecision answered one important question arising out of the Court’s 2011 decision in Stern v. Marshall,² it also left the primary question that resulted in a split in the Circuit Courts of Appeals to be decided another day.

The Aftermath of Stern v. Marshall

On April 17, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal to Nortel from the decision rendered by the Ontario Court of Appeal last October. For additional details and commentary on the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, please see our November 2013 Blakes Bulletin: Ontario Court of Appeal Applies AbitibiBowater Test in Concurrent Decisions.

Chapter 11
and CCAA
» A Cross-Border Comparison

Would you know what to do if you learned that one of your franchisees had filed for bankruptcy? Perhaps more importantly, would you know what not to do? While each circumstance and franchise agreement is different, there is a general framework for dealing with a franchisee in bankruptcy. Here we’ll introduce some of the issues you are likely to encounter throughout the bankruptcy process.

The Automatic Stay

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently affirmed the bankruptcy court decision in the Qimonda AG chapter 15 bankruptcy case,¹ providing that holders of intellectual property licenses based on U.S. patents are entitled to the special protections contained in 11 U.S.C. § 365(n).² In so doing, the court bolstered the rights of U.S. intellectual property licensees whose agreements might otherwise be vulnerable to termination in a cross-border insolvency proceeding.

Background

On November 12, 2013, the Alberta government issued EPPA Update 13-01, in response to recent developments in the actuarial profession affecting defined benefit pension (DB) plans.

In 2010, the Uniform Law Commission promulgated several amendments (Amendments) to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (Article 9) designed to address problems that have arisen since revised Article 9 went into effect in 2001. Most, but not all, of the Amendments address the proper way to reflect debtor names on financing statements.

Timing and Enactment

Overview

On February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers (Re Indalex). With respect to one critical issue,the SCC confirmed that a court-ordered debtor-in-possession (DIP) charge had priority over a deemed trust (akin to a statutory security interest) securing the debtor's obligation to fund a pension wind-up deficiency on the wind-up of a defined benefit (DB) pension plan.

On February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its much-anticipated decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers et al. (Indalex). This bulletin focuses on pension plan administration issues arising from the Indalex case.

Facts