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.
Rettung durch Restrukturierung im Planverfahren (Restrukturierungsplan & Insolvenzplan)
Die enormen wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen der weltweiten COVID-19-Pandemie haben die deutsche Wirtschaft in vielen Bereichen massiv getroffen. Für viele Branchen hat sich das Geschäftsklima erheblich verschlechtert. Geschäfte bleiben geschlossen, Lieferketten brechen ab, Reisen sind nur sehr eingeschränkt möglich, Umsätze sind deutlich zurückgegangen und Unternehmen müssen Kurzarbeit oder Zwangsurlaubeinführen, um laufende Kosten zu senken.
Die enormen wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen der weltweiten COVID-19-Pandemie haben die deutsche Wirtschaft massiv getroffen. Für viele Branchen hat sich das Geschäftsklima erheblich verschlechtert.
The huge economic impact of the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic has long since reached the German economy. For many industries, the business climate has deteriorated massively. Stores remain closed, supply chains are affected, customer numbers have significantly dropped and businesses have to impose reduced work hours (Kurzarbeit) or forced leave to reduce costs.
“[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]