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).
“[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]