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 court-fashioned doctrine of "equitable mootness" has frequently been applied to bar appeals of bankruptcy court orders under circumstances where reversal or modification of an order could jeopardize, for example, the implementation of a negotiated chapter 11 plan or related agreements and upset the expectations of third parties who have relied on the order.
To promote the finality and binding effect of confirmed chapter 11 plans, the Bankruptcy Code categorically prohibits any modification of a confirmed plan after it has been "substantially consummated." Stakeholders, however, sometimes attempt to skirt this prohibition by characterizing proposed changes to a substantially consummated chapter 11 plan as some other form of relief, such as modification of the confirmation order or a plan document, or reconsideration of the allowed amount of a claim. The U.S.
One year ago, we wrote that, unlike in 2019, when the large business bankruptcy landscape was generally shaped by economic, market, and leverage factors, the COVID-19 pandemic dominated the narrative in 2020. The pandemic may not have been responsible for every reversal of corporate fortune in 2020, but it weighed heavily on the scale, particularly for companies in the energy, retail, restaurant, entertainment, health care, travel, and hospitality industries.
In 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit made headlines when it ruled that creditors' state law fraudulent transfer claims arising from the 2007 leveraged buyout ("LBO") of Tribune Co. ("Tribune") were preempted by the safe harbor for certain securities, commodity, or forward contract payments set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. In that ruling, In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., 946 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 209 L. Ed. 2d 568 (U.S. Apr.
Verkopers en leveranciers van roerende goederen kunnen problemen met slecht betalende klanten voorkomen via een beding van eigendomsvoorbehoud.
Met dit beding kan men namelijk contractueel bepalen dat het eigendomsrecht op een bepaald goed pas overgaat nadat de derde-verkrijger er de prijs volledig van heeft betaald.
Les vendeurs et les fournisseurs de biens mobiliers peuvent faire face aux problèmes rencontrés avec des clients mauvais payeurs par l’insertion d’une clause de réserve de propriété.
Par cette clause, il peut notamment être prévu contractuellement que le droit de propriété d'un certain bien ne sera transféré qu'après paiement intégral du prix par l’acheteur.
Sellers and suppliers of movable assets can avoid problems caused by poorly-paying customers through a retention of title clause.
This clause makes it contractually possible to stipulate that ownership of a certain good does not transfer until the purchaser has paid the full price.
