In a recent decision released by Madam Justice Kent of the Alberta Court of Queens Bench (the “Court”) the Court declined to grant Octagon Properties Group Ltd. and certain affiliates (“Octagon” or the “Debtors”) relief pursuant to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985 c.C36 (“CCAA”).

In the recent decision of Re WorkGroup Designs Inc.,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (the "BIA") which relate to valuing and determining the claims of secured creditors in proposal proceedings under the BIA.

Background

A New York bankruptcy court recently considered the effects of Bankruptcy Code section 552 on a lender’s security interest in the proceeds of an FCC broadcast license and held that a prepetition security interest extended to proceeds received from a post-petition transfer of the debtors’ FCC license. Sprint Nextel Corp. v. U.S. Bank. N.A. (In re Terrestar Networks, Inc.), Case No. 10-15446, Adv. Pro. No. 10-05461 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2011). This result directly conflicts with Spectrum Scan LLC v. Valley Bank and Trust Co. (In re Tracy Broadcasting Corp.), 438 B.R.

Sending the Debtors back to the drawing board after almost three years in bankruptcy, in a 139 page opinion, the Bankruptcy Court has for the second time denied confirmation of the Plan of Reorganization for Washington Mutual, Inc. (“WaMu”), which was the owner of the largest savings bank ever to be seized by the FDIC.

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a bankruptcy court’s ruling that, where subordination agreements lacked explicit provisions addressing the payment of post-petition interest on senior unsecured debt, the agreements were ambiguous, and an inquiry into the parties’ intent was required. After probing the facts and analyzing New York law, the bankruptcy court determined that the contracting parties did not intend to subordinate the junior unsecured debt to post-petition interest on the senior debt.

Background

On April 18th, the FDIC released a report examining how it could have structured an orderly resolution of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. under the orderly liquidation authority of the Dodd-Frank Act had that law been in effect at the time.

On October 12th, the FDIC published for comment proposed rules on how the agency would treat certain creditor claims under the new orderly liquidation authority established under the Dodd-Frank Act. The proposed rules bar any additional payments to holders of long-term senior debt, subordinated debt or equity interests that would result in those creditors recovering more than other creditors entitled to the same priority of payments under the law.

On May 18th, the Second Circuit, addressing the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, held that a lender with a purchase-money security interest in a car is entitled to an unsecured claim with regard to a deficiency it incurred upon the surrender and sale of the car. The deficiency claim derives from the contract between the parties and background state law. In the absence of a Bankruptcy Code provision expressly disallowing it, such an unsecured claim may be maintained.

In a recent holding that a creditor may collect, on an unsecured basis, post-petition attorneys’ fees under an otherwise enforceable pre-petition contract, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals followed a similar ruling by the Ninth Circuit earlier this year, adding to a conflict among the circuits on this issue.

In a long awaited action, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued a final rule on July 6 which addresses the FDIC's rights and powers as receiver of a nonviable systemic financial company under the orderly liquidation authority provisions of Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.