The Bankruptcy Protector

The Bankruptcy Protector

In Enter. Bank v. The Ingros Fam. LLC, et al., 2022 WL 2283392 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. June 23, 2022), a lender faced a potentially costly decision when it mistakenly left the word “The” from a borrower’s name.

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3002.1 was implemented to protect debtors from unanticipated deficiencies in residential mortgage payments following a chapter 13 discharge, and the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico’s recent opinion in In re Feliciano Figueroa[1] illustrates how detrimental the rule can be to inattentive mortgage holders.

One of the landmark protections enacted by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act on March 27 was the Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP. Under the program, small businesses (e.g., those with fewer than 500 employees) — and certain other businesses in specific industries — are eligible to receive loans that will be fully forgiven if utilized under the terms of the program, including applying at least 75% of the funds received from the loans to payment of payroll expenses.

In the recent unreported decision of Alberta Treasury Branches v. Northpine Energy Ltd., the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta authorized a disposition of a debtor’s assets by a receiver immediately upon appointment and without being forced to conduct a marketing process within the receivership proceedings.

On April 20, 2016, the Canadian federal government introduced Bill C-15, which is legislation that provides for, among other things, a bank recapitalization or “bail-in” regime for domestic systemically important banks (“D-SIBs”).

BAIL-IN

Pan Canadian Mortgage Group v. 679972 B.C. Ltd., 2013 BCSC 1078 (Pan Canadian), addresses the nature and priority of a purchaser’s lien, which, in general terms, is a financial charge that results when a purchaser pays a deposit toward the purchase price under a contract of purchase and sale.

Introduction

The Supreme Court has issued its much-anticipated decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers.

US lenders in cross-border M&A transactions often ask how real estate security differs in Canada. The short answer is not much; the security and legal requirements are pretty much the same (though perhaps not as heavily negotiated and labyrinthine as US-style documentation).

What role does business common sense play in the interpretation of commercial contracts? This issue was recently addressed by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Rainy Sky S.A. v. Kookmin Bank. The answer: “where a term of a contract is open to more than one interpretation, it is generally appropriate to adopt the interpretation which is most consistent with business common sense”. Since there is currently some uncertainty in Canada on the point, Rainy Sky is an important case to consider.

Decision