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.

Sir Alastair Norris’ High Court judgment of 14 May 2021, confirming the sanctioning of the scheme of arrangement of DTEK Finance PLC in respect of existing bank lenders (the “Bank Scheme”) and the scheme of arrangement of DTEK Energy B.V. in respect of the outstanding notes (the “Note Scheme”) has now been published.

In what is likely to be the most significant change to the UK restructuring and insolvency market since the Enterprise Act 2002, the Court has paved the way for restructuring plans (RPs) under Part 26A to the Companies Act 2006 to be used to compromise the rights of landlords, financial creditors and other unsecured creditors provided the company shows that those creditors are “out of the money”.

On 25 September 2019, the Ukrainian Parliament brought into force law No. 112-IX (the “Law“). The purpose of the Law is to correct deficiencies in existing legislation and further promote out-of-court financial restructurings in the jurisdiction. The adoption of the Law comes in light of the high volume of non-performing loans which still exist in Ukraine.

The Law’s key provisions are as follows:

Astaldi, the Italian multinational construction company, filed on Friday (28 September) for concordato in bianco. This is an in-court restructuring proceeding under the Italian Bankruptcy Law, which imposes a standstill period for up to six months. Astaldi’s reference to certain provisions in the Bankruptcy Law indicates that it intends to use the standstill period to prepare for a concordato preventivo filing.

“[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]