Last week at the American Bankruptcy Institute meeting in Washington, D.C., our firm co-sponsored and participated in a mini-conference on bankruptcies that involve FCC-regulated companies. This was an opportunity to spend a few hours contemplating issues that practicing attorneys rarely get a chance to reflect upon in the midst of heated, multi-party bankruptcy proceedings.

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.

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.

According to a recent report issued by the American Bankruptcy Institute, there was a 24 percent drop in business  bankruptcy filings in the United States last year, resulting in the fewest filings since 2006. The larger corporate  filings in 2013 were not the typical “mega” filings of years past. Unlike Lehman, Chrysler, Tribune, MF Global  and others, the chapter 11 “mega-cases” filed in 2013 were smaller and less well known in the general business  community. Among the more prominent were Cengage Learning, Excel Maritime, and Exide Technologies.

A New York bankruptcy court has ruled that certain victims of Bernard Madoff’s highly publicized Ponzi scheme are not entitled to adjust their claims to account for inflation or interest. Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 496 B.R. 744 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013). The Madoff Liquidation Trustee brought the motion asking the court to determine that Madoff customers’ “net equity” claims did not include “time-based damages” such as interest and inflation under the Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”).

On March 12, 2009, Gerald Rote and Annalisa Rote  loaned $38,000 to their daughter and son-in-law to buy  a home. The Rotes took a mortgage on the home but, to  avoid the expense of publicly recording the mortgage,  they did not immediately record it. Rather, they waited  two years, until May 4, 2011, to record the mortgage.  Seven months later, however, the daughter and son-inlaw filed a bankruptcy petition.

After a plan of reorganization is confirmed by the bankruptcy court, the plan proponents often seek to consummate the confirmed plan as soon as possible by implementing a series of restructuring transactions. Meanwhile, and objecting party has the statutory right to appeal the bankruptcy court's confirmation rulings. Absent the entry of a court-ordered stay of implementation, however, the plan proponents may "win the race" and implement the transactions before the appellate court can rule on any appeals.

In his judgment handed down on 18 October1 Popplewell J took the opportunity to clarify the law
regarding payments by a company to third parties which may or may not have been suspicious and
where the company may or may not have been insolvent at the time. He looked long and hard at the
state of knowledge necessary to ground liability, at defences available to directors and whether the
court could relieve liability for innocent breaches.

On October 3, 2013, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued two significant decisions1 on the interplay between provincial environmental remediation and federal insolvency orders. The cases are of interest to environmental and insolvency lawyers across Canada. They are equally of interest to taxpayers who foot remediation costs shifted through insolvency.

Background

An “Administration Charge” under the CCAA

The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, as amended (“CCAA”) permits a court having jurisdiction over proceedings for the restructuring of an insolvent company to make certain orders, to secure payment of the fees of certain officials involved in those proceedings, including the Monitor of the insolvent company appointed for the restructuring proceeding.

A surprising judgment re the “Administration Charge”