Fulltext Search
Corporate minds do not all think alike: The Supreme Court affirms a purposive approach to the corporate attribution doctrine

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

Canada, Company & Commercial, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, Supreme Court of Canada
There’s Something About (Hail) Mary: Appeals of Sale Processes and Pre-Receivership Sale Agreements

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.

Canada, Ontario, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, McCarthy Tétrault LLP
What’s Done is Done: Third Circuit Upholds Equitable Mootness and Rules Out Possibility of Individualized Relief for Timely Objecting Party

Bankruptcy courts often dismiss appeals of chapter 11 plans when granting the relief requested in the appeal would undermine the finality and reliability of the corresponding plans, a doctrine known as Equitable Mootness. Over the past several years, certain circuits criticized the doctrine for its lack of statutory basis and effect of avoiding review on the merits.1

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
Fraudulent Transfer Claims Avoid State Sovereign Immunity, But Only If a Property Interest Exists Under State Law

In a recent decision, In re Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners, L.P., No. 14-000255-mdc (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Dec. 31, 2019), the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that state sovereign immunity does not prevent bankruptcy courts from hearing fraudulent transfer claims against states.

USA, Pennsylvania, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Debtor