In This Issue:
U.S. Supreme Court: Creditors May Immediately Appeal Denials of Automatic-Stay Relief
The construction industry is one of many that may be strained as a result of the current COVID-19 global pandemic. And the insolvency of any party in the construction pyramid often impacts many of the other parties in the same structure. Consequently, prudence in the construction business calls for general awareness of key issues at the intersection of construction and insolvency law.
In McKillen v. Wallace (In re Irish Bank Resolution Corp. Ltd.), 2019 WL 4740249 (D. Del. Sept. 27, 2019), the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware had an opportunity to consider, as an apparent matter of first impression, whether the U.S. common law "Barton Doctrine" applies extraterritorially. One of the issues considered by the district court on appeal was whether parties attempting to sue a foreign representative in a chapter 15 case must first obtain permission to sue from the foreign court that appointed the foreign representative.
In a recent split decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal held that super-priority charges granted in a Companies’ Creditor Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) proceeding may take priority over statutory deemed trusts claims advanced by the Crown.
A Manitoba Court recently offered guidance on how to approach an appeal from a notice of disallowance or determination of a claim under section 135(4) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 ("BIA"). Existing jurisprudence provided conflicting positions on whether to treat such appeals as true appeals or a hearing de novo. True appeals generally restrict the evidentiary record before the court to the evidence that was before the trustee. In a de novo hearing, the appeal court considers fresh evidence as a matter of course.
A Manitoba Court recently offered guidance on how to approach an appeal from a notice of disallowance or determination of a claim under section 135(4) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (“BIA”). Existing jurisprudence provided conflicting positions on whether to treat such appeals as true appeals or a hearing de novo. True appeals generally restrict the evidentiary record before the court to the evidence that was before the trustee. In a de novo hearing, the appeal court considers fresh evidence as a matter of course.
In In re O’Reilly, 598 B.R. 784 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2019), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied the petition of a foreign bankruptcy trustee for recognition under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code of a debtor’s Bahamian bankruptcy case. Although the Bahamian bankruptcy was otherwise eligible for chapter 15 recognition, the U.S.
Bill C-97 (the “Bill”) was introduced in Parliament to implement the federal budget tabled by the Liberal government on March 19, 2019. The Bill includes proposed changes to the Canada Business Corporations Act (“CBCA”), the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) and the Companies Creditors’ Arrangements Act (“CCAA”).
For more than a century, courts in England and Wales have refused to recognize or enforce foreign court judgments or proceedings that discharge or compromise debts governed by English law. In accordance with a rule (the "Gibbs Rule") stated in an 1890 decision by the English Court of Appeal, creditors holding debt governed by English law may still sue to recover the full amount of their debts in England even if such debts have been discharged or modified in connection with a non-U.K.
U.S. courts have a long-standing tradition of recognizing or enforcing the laws and court rulings of other nations as an exercise of international "comity." Prior to the enactment of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code in 2005, the procedure for obtaining comity from a U.S. court in cases involving a foreign bankruptcy or insolvency case was haphazard and unpredictable. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois indicates that the enactment of chapter 15 was a game changer in this context. In Halo Creative & Design Ltd. v.