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.

In In re Squirrels Rsch. Labs, LLC, No. 21-61491, 2022 WL 1310173, at *1 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Apr. 29, 2022), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio recently addressed whether post-sale of the debtors’ assets, a creditor could conduct discovery to investigate the extent of a secured creditor’s liens in order to amend the distribution of the sale proceeds. Under the facts of this case, the bankruptcy court denied the creditor’s request.

The Bankruptcy Protector

The Bankruptcy Protector

In the case of In re Ricky L. Moore (19-01228), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa taught an important lesson in the context of Chapter 12 bankruptcy cases[1]: do not rely on repeated assurances of payment from a friendly debtor in lieu of filing your bankruptcy proof of claim.

In LVNV Funding, LLC v. Harling, 852 F.3d 367 (4th Cir. 2017), as amended (Apr. 6, 2017), the Fourth Circuit addressed whether claim objections filed after a Chapter 13 plan had been confirmed are barred by the res judicata effect of the confirmed plan. Here, LVNV Funding filed unsecured proofs of claim that it conceded were barred by the statute of limitations.

“[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]