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 Bankruptcy Code confers upon debtors or trustees, as the case may be, the power to avoid certain preferential or fraudulent transfers made to creditors within prescribed guidelines and limitations. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico recently addressed the contours of these powers through a recent decision inU.S. Glove v. Jacobs, Adv. No. 21-1009, (Bankr. D.N.M.

On 1 January 2021, the German Act on Stabilization and Restructuring Framework for Business (StaRUG) came in to force as part of the German Act on Further Development of Restructuring and Insolvency Law (SanInsFoG). It contains several new pre-insolvency restructuring procedures, including a new preventive restructuring plan and corresponding protection of minority creditors.

What is the aim of the new preventive restructuring plan?

The Further Development Act on Restructuring and Insolvency Law (Sanierungsrechtsfortentwicklungsgesetz, or SanInsFoG2) came into force at the beginning of 2021, marking the final implementation of Germany's latest insolvency law innovations.

Here, we outline how the original, more extensive plans and draft laws from autumn 2020 compare with what was ultimately implemented.

Which provisions weren't implemented?

The SanInsFoG introduces the possibility of early risk identification and preventive restructuring before the stage of insolvency maturity.

In Germany, the duty to file for insolvency if there is illiquidity (Zahlungsunfähigkeit) and/or over-indebtedness (Überschuldung) was suspended under certain circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic until the end of September 2020.

The German Federal Government has passed a limited extension of the suspension period regarding over-indebtedness. We summarise the new legislation and outline the key takeaway for your business below.

What does the new legislation say?

In In re Smith, (B.A.P. 10th Cir., Aug. 18, 2020), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently joined the majority of circuit courts of appeals in finding that a creditor seeking a judgment of nondischargeability must demonstrate that the injury caused by the prepetition debtor was both willful and malicious under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Factual Background

In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that claim disallowance issues under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code "travel with" the claim, and not with the claimant. Declining to follow a published district court decision from the same federal district, the bankruptcy court found that section 502(d) applies to disallow a transferred claim regardless of whether the transferee acquired its claim through an assignment or an outright sale. See In re Firestar Diamond, 615 B.R. 161 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020).

InIn re Juarez, 603 B.R. 610 (9th Cir. BAP 2019), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a question of first impression in the circuit with respect to property that is exempt from creditor reach: it adopted the view that, under the "new value exception" to the "absolute priority rule," an individual Chapter 11 debtor intending to retain such property need not make a "new value" contribution covering the value of the exemption.

Background

In In re Palladino, 942 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed whether a debtor receives “reasonably equivalent value” in exchange for paying his adult child’s college tuition. The Palladino court answered this question in the negative, thereby contributing to the growing circuit split regarding the avoidability of debtors’ college tuition payments for their adult children as constructively fraudulent transfers.

Background