Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Chapter 11 plan that provides for the sale of assets free and clear of a creditor’s lien must allow the creditor to “credit bid” at the sale. In upholding the Seventh Circuit’s decision,¹RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank resolved the circuit split on this issue between the Seventh Circuit, on the one hand, and the Third and Fifth Circuits, on the other.

BANKRUPTCY CODE

Nearly a year has passed since the Supreme Court held, in Stern v. Marshall,¹ that bankruptcy courts may not determine a potentially broad range of “private rights” disputes arising in bankruptcy proceedings. Lower courts have grappled with the practical implications of Stern, but it is not yet clear whether the decision will ultimately result in a significant curtailment of bankruptcy court power or prove narrower in application.

The common law has long recognized a secured creditor’s duty to provide reasonable notice to borrowers before enforcing its security and appointing a receiver. The practical importance of this has become less significant since the codification of the principle of reasonable notice in section 244 of theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”). However, in the recent case of Bank of Montreal v.

On March 1, 2012 a number of important changes to the insolvency regime in Germany came into force.¹ The main objective of the reforms is to facilitate the restructuring of companies and to enhance creditor’s involvement. The German government believes – in light of the recent financial crisis – that these reforms are necessary to facilitate complex restructurings.

NEW PRELIMINARY CREDITORS’ COMMITTEE

In the midst of the ongoing restructurings of Nortel and AbitibiBowater, the New Democrats introduced Bill C-501 in the spring of 2010 to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) with the goal of better protecting employees’ interests in the context of formal insolvency proceedings, including pension interests. However, Bill C-501 did not become law.

Introduction

In “True Lease v. Security Lease – Is the Distinction Still Relevant?” which appeared in the June 2008 issue of Collateral Matters, Jill Fraser discussed a 2007 amendment to the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (the “PPSA”) and whether or not the distinction between a true lease and a security lease was still relevant in light of that amendment.

Section 11.01 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) states that no order under Section 11 or 11.02 of the CCAA has the effect of: (a) prohibiting a person from requiring immediate payment for goods, services, the use of leased or licensed property or other valuable consideration provided after the order is made; or (b) requiring the further advance of money or credit.

As most are aware by now, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) recently caused alarm by finding that claims of pension plan beneficiaries ranked higher than the super-priority debtor-in-possession financing charge (the “DIP Charge”) created by the amended initial order (the “CCAA Order”) in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) proceedings of the Indalex group of Canadian companies (collectively, “Indalex”).

During the past 14 months, courts in Ontario have rendered three decisions dealing with the application of limitation periods to claims for fraudulent conveyances or preferences. A “limitation period” is a period of time, specified in a statute, within which a plaintiff must commence a court proceeding to seek a remedy. Otherwise, the claim is said to be “statute-barred” and an action to enforce the claim will be dismissed.

The recent decisions have brought some clarity to the law in this area, but have left other questions unanswered.

Background

In the recent case of Peterborough (City) v. Kawartha Native Housing Society, the Ontario Court of Appeal was asked to determine: