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.
The ferocious expansion of the shared office sector in recent years has caused a great deal of speculation about the long term viability of shared office accommodation as a business model.
In this insight, we look at how a shared office provider's insolvency might impact on its occupiers, depending on the insolvency process which is followed.
The shared office accommodation business model
Dubbed "the year of the CVA", 2018 has so far seen a spate of high profile retail insolvencies. Landlords are seeking to protect their position in this volatile climate.
The rules governing the actions landlords can take in insolvency situations are complex. They depend on whether the tenant is a company or individual, the specific insolvency process involved and whether the Financial Collateral Arrangements (No. 2) Regulations 2003 (FCAR) apply.
Reforms are needed to the current company voluntary arrangement (CVA) process, according to both R3 and the British Property Federation (BPF).
R3 (the trade association for the UK’s insolvency, restructuring, advisory, and turnaround professionals) has published a research report recommending a number of reforms to improve the effectiveness and reputation of CVAs. These include:
The High Court has released an important decision for landlords and Insolvency Practitioners in the wake of the failure of the company voluntary arrangement (CVA) entered into by BHS Limited (BHS).
On July 6-7, 2017, Craig Jalbert, in his capacity as Trustee for F2 Liquidating Trust, filed approximately 187 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and/or fraudulent transfers under Sections 547, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code (depending on the nature of the claims). In certain instances, the Trustee also seeks to disallow claims of such defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.
On June 15, 2017, Curtis R. Smith, as Liquidating Trustee of the Hastings Creditors’ Liquidating Trust, filed approximately 69 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and/or fraudulent transfers under Sections 547, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Liquidating Trustee also seeks to disallow claims of such defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.
On June 13, 2017, The Original Soupman, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively “Debtors” or “Original Soupman”) commenced voluntary bankruptcy proceedings under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. According to its petition, Original Soupman estimates that its assets are between $1 million and $10 million, and its liabilities are between $10 million and $50 million.
On May 17, 2017, GulfMark Offshore, Inc. (“GulfMark” or “Debtor”) filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.