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.

Over the next few years, a significant number of distressed bank-holding companies will face the end of interestdeferral periods and the prospect of payment defaults on certain debt instruments and trust-preferred securities. The looming obligations to repay deferred interest may escalate the need for financial restructuring at these holding companies and may create attractive opportunities for investors to recapitalize or acquire their subsidiary banks, including in a bankruptcy scenario.

Firms offering comprehensive financial services scored a significant victory on April 9, 2013, when Judge Robert Sweet of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Capmark Financial Group Inc.’s (“Capmark”) insider preference action against four lender affiliates of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (“Goldman Sachs”), which arose out of Capmark’s 2009 bankruptcy.¹ Davis Polk represented the Goldman Sachs lender affiliates and advanced the arguments adopted by Judge Sweet.

On December 31, 2012, Strategic Growth Bancorp Inc. (“Strategic Growth”), an El Paso, Texas-based bank holding company, acquired Mile High Banks (the “Bank”), a Colorado community bank, from the Bank’s parent, Big Sandy Holding Company (“Big Sandy”), through an auction process conducted pursuant to section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. Davis Polk represented Strategic Growth and advised on the complex and overlapping bankruptcy, mergers and acquisitions, credit, tax and bank regulatory issues presented by the transaction.