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 vielen Branchen kann die Lieferkette eine Vielzahl von Unternehmen und Jurisdiktionen umfassen. Im derzeitigen Wirtschaftsklima ist es nicht ungewöhnlich, dass einzelne Lieferanten innerhalb dieser Lieferkette in finanzielle   Schwierigkeiten   geraten   oder ein Insolvenzverfahren beantragen.

In many industries, the supply chain can involve multiple suppliers and jurisdictions. In the current economic climate, it is not unusual for a supplier within the supply chain to encounter financial distress or even to enter into formal insolvency proceedings. This can have a significant impact on a company if its business depends on a distressed supplier and an alternative or additional supplier cannot be found (and production cannot be brought in house) or an alternative sourcing is not possible for other reasons, like part/raw material approval process, testing, customs etc.

With each extension, the scope of the suspension of the obligation to file for insolvency which was first introduced in March 2020 became more and more limited.

The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).

The Supreme Court this week resolved a long-standing open issue regarding the treatment of trademark license rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of Mission Products, a licensee under a trademark license agreement that had been rejected in the chapter 11 case of Tempnology, the debtor-licensor, determining that the rejection constituted a breach of the agreement but did not rescind it.

Few issues in bankruptcy create as much contention as disputes regarding the right of setoff. This was recently highlighted by a decision in the chapter 11 case of Orexigen Therapeutics in the District of Delaware.

The judicial power of the United States is vested in courts created under Article III of the Constitution. However, Congress created the current bankruptcy court system over 40 years ago pursuant to Article I of the Constitution rather than under Article III.