What is a Stalking Horse?
In the distressed M&A context, a stalking horse refers to a potential purchaser participating in a stalking horse auction who agrees to acquire the assets or business of an insolvent debtor as a going concern. In a stalking horse auction of an insolvent business, a preliminary bid by the stalking horse bidder is disclosed to the market and becomes the minimum bid, or floor price, that other parties can then outbid.
Recent decisions in the Ontario courts have brought this issue to the forefront, which is salient during this time of economic uncertainty for the oil industry and its related environmental obligations. The courts have had to focus on balancing competing public interests: those of creditors and the general health and safety of the public when a debtor has an outstanding obligation to remediate its pollution.
On December 16, 2014, President Obama signed into law the $1.1 trillion Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015 (Appropriations Act), which includes some significant changes to the rules governing multiemployer pension plans, as well as a few changes affecting single employer pension plans.
With several billions of dollars ultimately at stake, the Second Circuit has affirmed that Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, a safe-harbor protecting certain securities-related payments from bankruptcy “claw backs,” barred Irving Picard, Trustee of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC (“BLMIS”), from asserting all but a limited category of avoidance and recovery claims. In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec.
The United States District Court in Delaware recently issued a welcome decision for private equity firms whose portfolio companies run afoul of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the “WARN Act”). In In re Jevic Holding Corp. (PDF), the Court affirmed a bankruptcy court decision holding that Sun Capital Partners (“Sun”) was not liable for the WARN Act violations of Jevic Transportation Inc.
A recent pair of opinions from New York and Pennsylvania shows the importance of evaluating all parts of director and officer (D&O) insurance coverage, down to each definition. These cases, one holding for the insured and one for the insurer, demonstrate that a policy’s terms can be absolutely critical if the insured seeks indemnification for defense costs.
The doctrine of federal paramountcy provides that where there is an inconsistency between validly enacted but overlapping provincial and federal legislation, the provincial legislation is inoperative to the extent of the inconsistency and the remainder of the provincial legislation is unaffected.
A recent decision at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) brought to the fore the role of fairness opinions in solvent arrangement transactions. In Re ChampionIron Mines Limited (Champion) the court approved the arrangement but deemed the fairness opinion inadmissible on the basis that it failed to disclose the reasons underlying its conclusion.
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), requires trustees of multiemployer pension and benefit funds to collect contributions required to be made by contributing employers under their collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) with the labor union sponsoring the plans. This is not always an easy task—often, an employer is an incorporated entity with limited assets or financial resources to satisfy its contractual obligations.
In Susi v. Bourke, 2014 O.J. No. 11
A Summary
In Susi v. Bourke, [2014] OJ No 11, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that when all of the directors of a corporation fail to comply with their fiduciary duties, none of them can seek a remedy for oppression.