Bankruptcy & restructuring

The economies of the United States (U.S.) and Canada are closely intertwined. As operations expand across the border, so too do the complexities associated with carrying on business — particularly the insolvency of a company spanning both jurisdictions. As such, understanding how to navigate the complexities of Canadian insolvency regimes is essential to successfully doing business in the country.

1. Legislation and court system

(E.D. Ky. Oct. 3, 2017)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s interpretation of a final cash collateral order, holding the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in finding a carve-out for payment of professional fees included prepetition collateral of the lenders. The text of the order along with a review of the case record made clear that the parties had agreed the prepetition collateral was included. $2.4 million in fees were awarded. Opinion below.

Judge: Wilhoit

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Oct. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants in part the debtor’s motion to avoid a judicial lien on two parcels of real property. Applying the formula in 11 U.S.C. § 522(f), the court determines that the debtor’s exemption is impaired with respect to one parcel but not the other. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

Attorneys for Debtor: Michael B. Baker, James R. Westenhoefer

Attorneys for Creditor: DelCotto Law Group PLLC, Sara A. Johnston

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DISMISSED

37656

Norris Barens v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Constitutional law – Mobility rights

The applicant was convicted of driving without a licence contrary to s. 24(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318.

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Sep. 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s interpretation of the creditor’s settlement agreement with the debtor. The agreement provided that the creditor released his claims against the city and the individual officers. The plan only provided for a small percentage to be paid on the claim, but stated claims against individual officers were not discharged by the plan. The creditor argued the settlement agreement should not be held to have released claims against the individual officers, but the court finds the plain language of the agreement makes clear such claims were released.

In a recent decision[1], the British Columbia Supreme Court (the “Court”) determined that purported secured loans made by a shareholder were properly characterized as equity contributions to the subject company and therefore subordinate to the claims of the company’s creditors.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Sep. 15, 2017)

The bankruptcy court denies the lender’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The lender argued that the party signing the debtor’s petition did not have the requisite authority to commence a bankruptcy case for the debtor. The bankruptcy court finds that amendments to the debtor’s operating agreement were made for the sole purpose of eliminating the debtor’s ability to file for bankruptcy without the lender’s consent. The court finds this violates Federal public policy and the provisions are unenforceable. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Sep. 14, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the university’s motion for summary judgment, determining that the student loan debt is nondischargeable. The debtor filed the adversary proceeding alleging repayment would present an undue hardship. The debtor did not respond to the university’s motion and failed to present any evidence to satisfy the Brunner test. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Debtor: Eric C. Redman, Redman Ludwig PC

Attorney for University: Constantine Alexander Hortis, Maryland Attorney General

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Sep. 8, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 7 case because the debtor failed to rebut the “presumption of abuse.” The debtor argued she should be permitted to file under Chapter 7 because of special circumstances, pursuant to § 707(b)(2)(B). The debtor argued that she was a “stockbroker” and thus not eligible for Chapter 11 or 13. However, the court determines that she is not a stockbroker because she is merely an employee, rather than a stockbroker as defined by § 101. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise