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 August 2021, Raízen S.A. (one of the largest integrated energy companies in Brazil) merged with Biosev S.A. and Biosev Bioenergia S.A (sugar, ethanol and biomass producing businesses previously owned by the Louis Dreyfus group). Shortly prior to the completion of that merger, the agreement for which was signed in February 2021, Raízen completed one of the biggest initial public offerings in Brazil ever.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.^[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.

Case Background

A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision^[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.

The Colombian airline Aerovias Nacionales de Colombia S.A. – Avianca (“Avianca”) has made a habit of accessing the structured credit markets by monetizing its expected stream of credit card receivables, filing for U.S. Chapter 11 protection when in distress, and then challenging the structured credit agreements to which it had committed. Recently, Avianca reached a settlement with the lenders to its existing future flow receivables transaction, entered into in December 2017, which will result in a restructured loan facility.

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.

Case Background

When an individual files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the debtor’s non-exempt assets become property of the estate that is used to pay creditors. “Property of the estate” is a defined term under the Bankruptcy Code, so a disputed question in many cases is: What assets are, in fact, available to creditors?

In a pair of private exchange offers consummated in May 2020, airport operating companies owned by Corporacin Amrica Airports S.A. (NYSE: CAAP) in Argentina and Uruguay were able to restructure their existing debt securities in order to withstand the substantial revenue declines associated with the drop-off in air travel as a result of the coronavirus pandemic ("COVID-19").

Once a Chapter 7 debtor receives a discharge of personal debts, creditors are enjoined from taking action to collect, recover, or offset such debts. However, unlike personal debts, liens held by secured creditors “ride through” bankruptcy. The underlying debt secured by the lien may be extinguished, but as long as the lien is valid it survives the bankruptcy.