Re Ted LeRoy Trucking Ltd. and 383838 B.C. Ltd. (2009), 52 C.B.R. (5th) 225, 2009 BCSC 41 (B.C.S.C.)

Ted LeRoy Trucking Ltd. obtained protection under the CCAA and PriceWaterhouseCooper was its monitor. The debtor tried to restructure and failed, and was assigned into bankruptcy with PriceWaterhouseCooper as its trustee.

Traditionally in Italy the financial distress of a corporation was treated in a very strict way through proceedings aimed at the dissolution of the company, the sale of its assets and the replace of the directors with commissioners appointed by Public Bodies. Indeed, should the enterprise become insolvent (i.e. not able to regularly pay its debts), it was unavoidably destined to be declared under bankruptcy or be put into extraordinary administration, a special form of insolvency procedure dedicated to the largest companies and aimed at preserving the workforce.

Welcome to the latest issue of the Section 337 Update. This newsletter is designed to provide you with practical updates and developments on Section 337 proceedings before the US International Trade Commission.

The Collision of Section 337 and the US Bankruptcy Laws

A. United States v. Delfasco, Inc., 409 B.R. 704 (D. Del. July 15, 2009).

This suit involved a motion to withdraw from Bankruptcy Court to District Court. Defendant/Debtor Delfasco, Inc. (“Delfasco”) filed for Chapter 11 protection under the Bankruptcy Code following the EPA’s issuance of a RCRA Order requiring Delfasco to install and maintain mitigation systems for trichloroethylene that it discovered on its property. The United States, on behalf of the EPA, filed an Adversary Complaint against Delfasco, followed by this motion to withdraw.  

On July 13, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held, in a landmark decision, that a plan sponsor which had the right to unilaterally terminate retiree benefits outside of bankruptcy could not exercise that same right during a bankruptcy proceeding. The case, IUE-CWA v. Visteon Corp. (In re Visteon Corp.), marks the first time that a Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a bankrupt employer in its attempt to unilaterally terminate non-vested retiree welfare benefits.

Is a rent-stabilized lease in New York a “local public assistance benefit” that is exempt from property of a debtor’s bankruptcy estate, or is it merely “a quirk of the regulatory scheme in the New York housing market[?]”  That was the question recently decided by the Second Circuit in In re Monteverde.  

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, applying Florida law, has held that exclusions for claims involving the receivership of a healthcare benefit plan and claims involving Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements (MEWA) barred coverage for claims brought by a receiver of a healthcare benefit plan alleging that brokers sold coverage under a benefit plan that was a MEWA. White v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 2008 WL 2073905 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2008).

Is a rent-stabilized lease in New York a “local public assistance benefit” that is exempt from property of a debtor’s bankruptcy estate, or is it merely “a quirk of the regulatory scheme in the New York housing market[?]”  That was the question recently decided by the Second Circuit in In re Monteverde.