Chapter 11
and CCAA
» A Cross-Border Comparison

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.

A New York state court recently denied a motion to dismiss an action brought by a reorganized debtor against the former chair of the official committee of unsecured creditors in the debtor's chapter 11 case.¹  The decision is noteworthy for its holding that the reorganized debtor had standing to commence an action against the former committee member even though the claim was not expressly listed as an asset of the estate in the debtor's chapter 11 disclosure statement.

Background

Due to the substantial time and effort involved in negotiating and confirming a Chapter 11 reorganization plan, and the potential for improperly solicited votes to be disqualified, plan proponents generally are well advised to adhere strictly to the plan voting and disclosure requirements of the Bankruptcy Code.  A recent Delaware bankruptcy court decision, In re Indianapolis Downs, LLC,¹ indicates that creditors who actively negotiate the terms of a debtor's reorganization can, under certain circumstances, enter into a formal plan support agreement with the debtor

On occasion, an owner files a chapter 7 bankruptcy during or in connection with an association’s foreclosure.  While that chapter 7 bankruptcy may slow that foreclosure, it will absolutely not end it.  A chapter 7 bankruptcy ‘stays’ that foreclosure, sure.  That chapter 7 bankruptcy stay remains in effect with respect to “property of the estate” until it that property (the unit) is no longer property of the estate.  During the course of a chapter 7 bankruptcy, the bankruptcy trustee eventually ‘abandons’ the property of the estate.  Once that ‘abando

Public policy in New York prompted the establishment of, and recent increase to the Homestead Exemption (the “Exemption”), codified in the CPLR at §5206.  The Exemption, a statutorily created right, affords property owners (and their surviving heirs) certain protections from a creditor’s right to levy against a judgment debtor’s real property for the purpose of satisfying a personal money judgment.  The rationale behind the need for the Exemption is to ensure that a property owner is not left wholly insolvent once his primary residence is taken from him.

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

The long-awaited and highly anticipated decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Indalex case was released today. The decision stems from an appeal of an Ontario Court of Appeal decision dealing with a priority dispute between a court-ordered debtor-in-possession (DIP) charge granted under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA) and a deemed trust for a wind-up pension deficiency asserted under the Pension Benefits Act (Ontario)(PBA).

A recent case¹ decided by Judge Stuart Bernstein of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York demonstrates that a developer's properly crafted chapter 11 plan of reorganization can effectively "restore" trust funds that it previously had "diverted" under the New York Lien Law.