This significant recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada confirms (i) that a CCAA supervising judge enjoys broad discretion and the necessary jurisdiction to prevent a creditor from voting on a plan of arrangement when the creditor is acting for an improper purpose, and (ii) that litigation funding is not intrinsically illegal and that a litigation funding agreement can be approved by the Court as an interim financing in insolvency.

This significant recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada confirms (i) that a CCAA supervising judge enjoys broad discretion and the necessary jurisdiction to prevent a creditor from voting on a plan of arrangement when the creditor is acting for an improper purpose, and (ii) that litigation funding is not intrinsically illegal and that a litigation funding agreement can be approved by the Court as an interim financing in insolvency.

UBS terminated its ISDA Master and FX transactions with Lehman Brothers Inc., was obligated to return about $23 million in collateral, wanted to set-off against that $23 million amounts owing by LBI to UBS affiliates as contemplated by the cross-affiliates set-off provision.

If you were waiting to hear what the English Court of Appeal had to say about the lower court decision in Marine Trade S.A. v. Pioneer Freight Futures Co. Ltd. you’ll be disappointed, as the appeal was dismissed by consent of the parties on October 22, 2010.

That darn Lehman Brothers bankruptcy sure is raising some interesting insolvency issues for derivatives market participants (and their lawyers of course). It’s interesting (at least for us insolvency nerds) to think about how some of those issues might play out under Canadian insolvency laws. Here are some thoughts on one of the recent cases with my Canadian spin.