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.
On October 17, 2022, Justice Andrea Masley of the NY Supreme Court issued a decision and order denying all but one of the motion to dismiss claims filed by Boardriders, Oaktree Capital (an equity holder, term lender, and “Sponsor” under the credit agreement), and an ad hoc group of lenders (the “Participating Lenders”) that participated in an “uptiering” transaction that included new money investments and roll-ups of existing term loan debt into new priming debt that would sit at the top of the company’s capital structure.
On October 14, 2022, the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Ultra Petroleum, granting favorable outcomes to “unimpaired” creditors that challenged the company’s plan of reorganization and argued for payment (i) of a ~$200 million make-whole and (ii) post-petition interest at the contractual rate, not the Federal Judgment Rate. At issue on appeal was the Chapter 11 plan proposed by the “massively solvent” debtors—Ultra Petroleum Corp. (HoldCo) and its affiliates, including subsidiary Ultra Resources, Inc.
On July 6, Delaware Bankruptcy Court Judge Craig T. Goldblatt issued a memorandum opinion in the bankruptcy cases of TPC Group, Inc., growing the corpus of recent court decisions tackling “uptiering” and other similar transactions that have been dubbed by some practitioners and investors as “creditor-on-creditor violence.” This topic has been a hot button issue for a few years, playing out in a number of high profile scenarios, from J.Crew and Travelport to Serta Simmons and TriMark, among others.
On August 26, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Bankruptcy Code does not require subordination agreements to be strictly enforced in order for a court to confirm a cramdown plan, so long as the plan does not discriminate unfairly.
The (the "Act") obtained Royal Assent on 25 June 2020 and came into effect on 26 June 2020.
The Act is intended to offer protection to businesses that are having difficulties trading due to the current economic downturn and beyond, and generally marks a shift towards a more debtor-friendly regime. The provisions will be relevant to occupational pension schemes.
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (the "Act") obtained Royal Assent on 25 June 2020 and came into effect on 26 June 2020.
The Act is intended to offer protection to businesses that are having difficulties trading due to the current economic downturn and beyond, and generally marks a shift towards a more debtor-friendly regime. The provisions will be relevant to occupational pension schemes.
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill 2020 (the Bill) was published on 20 May 2020. Following completion of the Bill's third reading in the House of Commons, it is now proceeding through the House of Lords.
The (the Bill) was published on 20 May 2020. Following completion of the Bill's third reading in the House of Commons, it is now proceeding through the House of Lords.
he Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill 2020 (the Bill) was published on 20 May 2020. Following completion of the Bill's third reading in the House of Commons, it is now proceeding through the House of Lords.