Fulltext Search

Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.

In re RAG East, LP– Case no. 12-04545-CMB (Bankr. W.D. Pa. March 4, 2013)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The court granted summary judgment in favor of a defrauded lender in a lien priority dispute with subsequent third-party lenders. The court determined that the lien of a purchase money mortgage that was allegedly released pursuant to a fraudulent satisfaction piece nonetheless had priority over the liens held by innocent third parties who provided loans to the debtor without notice of the fraud.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In re 400 Walnut Associates, L.P., 2012 BL 140988 (E.D. Pa. June 7, 2012)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The creditor appealed the denial of its claim for pre-petition interest at the contractual default rate. The district court reversed and remanded the case, holding that the bankruptcy court had incorrectly applied an "equitable analysis" in making its decision.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In re Shubh Hotels Pittsburgh, Inc., Bankr. No. 10-26337JAD (Bankr. W.D. Pa. July 24, 2012)

CASE SNAPSHOT

When being sued, corporate and individual defendants should always confirm that the plaintiff has not been previously discharged in bankruptcy and failed to disclose the claim in the proceeding as an asset of the bankruptcy estate. In Guay v. Burack, 677 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012), the plaintiff brought numerous claims against various governmental entities, governmental officials and a police officer.

In re Nance Properties, Inc., Case No. 11-06197- 8-JRL (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Nov. 8, 2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT