Background:

Early last week PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc., in its capacity as trustee in bankruptcy for Sequoia Resources Corp., filed a statement of claim against Perpetual Energy Inc., attempting to unwind an asset sale from Oct. 1, 2016. Alternatively, PwC is seeking $217-million in damages. Along with Perpetual, PwC has named certain subsidiaries and its CEO, Susan Riddell Rose, as defendants.

In its statement of claim, the plaintiff is relying upon legal principles associated with oppression, reviewable transactions in insolvencies and regulatory law in support of its action.

Early last week PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc., in its capacity as trustee in bankruptcy for Sequoia Resources Corp., filed a statement of claim against Perpetual Energy Inc., attempting to unwind an asset sale from Oct. 1, 2016. Alternatively, PwC is seeking $217-million in damages. Along with Perpetual, PwC has named certain subsidiaries and its CEO, Susan Riddell Rose, as defendants.

In its statement of claim, the plaintiff is relying upon legal principles associated with oppression, reviewable transactions in insolvencies and regulatory law in support of its action.

Until 2013, no circuit court of appeals had weighed in on the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s pronouncement in the 203 North LaSalle case that property retained by a junior stakeholder under a cram-down chapter 11 plan in exchange for new value “without benefit of market valuation” violates the “absolute priority rule.” See Bank of Amer. Nat’l Trust & Savings Ass’n v. 203 North LaSalle Street P’ship, 526 U.S. 434 (1999), reversing Matter of 203 North LaSalle Street P’ship, 126 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 1997).

Introduction

Introduction

Introduction

Introduction

Introduction

Introduction