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 single proceeding model, which is a core tenet in insolvency proceedings, was recently reaffirmed in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) proceedings of Bloom Lake in Re Bloom Lake, 2021 QCCS 3402.

We previously published Part 1 of our survey of interesting and important developments in Canadian insolvency and restructuring matters in 2017. This post is the second and final part – with an additional seven highlights and cases. You can also find a printable version containing the complete “Top Insolvency Cases and Highlights from 2017” bulletin on our website.

2017 saw a number of interesting and important developments in Canadian insolvency and restructuring matters. Some of the highlights (which, in certain instances, will continue as issues in 2018 and beyond) are set forth below:

1) Trends: Fewer CCAA Filings and Retail Insolvencies in the News

This fall, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois (“Bloc”) have both introduced private member’s bills seeking to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act(“BIA”) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”).

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]