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.
Industrial and manufacturing businesses face all kinds of challenges: pricing and competitive pressures; regulatory demands; cross-border trade regulations and obligations; and litigation risk stemming from environmental and tort claims. These challenges create risks around every corner, some even rising to the level of "bet-the-company" issues – the things that keep GCs up at night.
On Wednesday, November 3, the House Judiciary Committee approved legislation on a party-line vote that could drastically reshape chapter 11 restructurings, particularly in cases involving significant tort liability. The bill, the Nondebtor Release Prohibition Act of 2021 (the “NRPA”) is sponsored by Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Oversight Chairman Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), and Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI), who chairs the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law, which has jurisdiction over bankruptcy law-related issues.
The development of new powertrain technology; challenges within established markets, such as diesel emissions issues; and falls in automotive production – production in the United Kingdom has fallen during the last 12 consecutive months – have had a significant impact on the automotive and mobility industry.
Hogan Lovells partners Chris Donoho and Ron Silverman spoke to DebtWire Radio about current issues concerning cross-border restructurings. They addressed the factors that prompt foreign-based companies to avail themselves of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in lieu of local insolvency proceedings. They also talked about the hurdles that such companies must overcome to secure a U.S. court’s administration of their Chapter 11 cases.
How does U.S. Chapter 11 law differ from other foreign insolvency regimes around the world?
“[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.
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).
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]