Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
The right to effectively avoid the illegitimate removal of assets from a company in financial difficulties is a key element of any insolvency law that protects the rights of creditors and maximises the recovery of value from the insolvent company.
Czech insolvency law, and in particular the insolvency avoidance rights, play a significant role as a recovery tool for creditors in insolvency proceedings, but in practice mainly act as a preventive warning signal for a debtor and its creditors when trading, even before financial problems arise.
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.
After more than two years of delay, preventive restructuring has finally become available to companies in financial difficulties in the Czech Republic. Czech companies can now seek to restructure their troubled businesses outside formal insolvency proceedings with the help of new rules specifically designed to keep their viable business operating and to prevent insolvency.
A pre-pack insolvency sale, which is an expedited liquidation proceeding that allow for the sale of all or part of a debtor’s business as a going concern to the best bidder shortly after the insolvency proceedings are opened, is not formally regulated in the Czech Republic.
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.