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.

By means of a category two Public Trustee v Cooper application, in which Jeffrey Elkinson and Britt Smith of Conyers, led by Brian Green KC, acted for the successful plaintiffs, the first plaintiff as trustee, and the second plaintiff as protector, of three family trusts¹ sought to give effect to a 2018 settlement agreement reached between all of the adult beneficiaries concerning the collective assets in the trusts.

“[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.

Liquidators of insolvent Australian companies often pursue directors of the failed company in recovery proceedings for the benefit of creditors. Following a High Court of Australia decision in April 2016, it is now clear that a liquidator can join liability insurers of defendant directors in such proceedings, even when the insurer has denied liability under a policy. The liquidator, even though not a party to the contract, may then seek a declaration in the same proceedings that the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured defendant.

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).

Liquidators of insolvent Australian companies often pursue directors of the failed company in recovery proceedings for the benefit of creditors. Following a High Court of Australia decision in April 2016, it is now clear that the liquidators can join liability insurers of defendant directors in such proceedings, even when the insurer has denied liability under a policy.  The liquidators, even though not a party to the contract, may then seek a declaration in the same proceedings that the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured defendant.

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]

An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.