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 response to the July 2, 2012 Order of Rehabilitation, and an anticipated Order of Liquidation, against Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company and American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company (collectively, “Lumbermens”),1 we have prepared the following “frequently asked questions” guide summarizing issues related to: (i) the financial regulation of insurance companies; (ii) the liquidation and proof of claim process in Illinois; (iii) potential recovery by policyholders of the amount of “covered” workers’ compensation claims from state guaranty associations; (iv) policyh

In response to an imminent Order of Liquidation against the Kemper Insurance Companies, we have prepared the following “frequently asked questions” guide summarizing issues related to: (i) the financial regulation of insurance companies; (ii) the liquidation and proof of claim process in Illinois; (iii) potential recovery by policyholders of the amount of “covered” workers’ compensation claims from state guaranty associations; (iv) policyholder collateral; and (v) planning a response to the Kemper liquidation.1

I. FINANCIAL REGULATION OF INSURANCE COMPANIES