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.

The Delaware Court of Chancery took the old maxim “justice delayed is justice denied” to heart recently when it denied a request for a stay of proceedings hours after the request had been filed. The ruling from Vice Chancellor Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr. in In re Kidbox.com, Inc., Case No. 2022-0379-PAF, is the latest in a series of rulings from the Delaware Court of Chancery requiring litigants in bankruptcy-alternative proceedings in Delaware to support their petitions for relief with sufficient disclosures and to avoid bare-boned pleadings.

On December 20, 2019, the honorable Marvin Isgur, judge of the Southern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court, issued an opinion holding that Alta Mesa Holdings (“Alta Mesa”), an upstream oil and gas producer with operations based in the STACK formation, could not, under Oklahoma law, reject certain gathering agreements in its bankruptcy case.1 The holding in Alta Mesa follows a similar outcome issued less than three months earlier in In re Badlands Energy, Inc.,2 a case decided by a Colorado bankruptcy court applying Utah law.