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.

Although the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) arrived in time to prevent a wholesale “no deal Brexit,” issues of cross-border cooperation and recognition in relation to insolvency and restructuring proceedings were not included in the agreement.

On 20 May 2020, the U.K. government published the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the bill), which includes measures designed to help businesses through the COVID-19 pandemic and features important substantive reforms to U.K. restructuring law, whose introduction has been accelerated by the crisis.

COVID-19-Related Measures:

The key temporary measures introduced by the bill are:

Statutory Demands and Winding up Petitions

The U.K. government is proposing to reintroduce preferential status to certain taxes in U.K. insolvencies beginning 6 April 2020. If enacted:

• certain taxes owed to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) would rank ahead of floating charges in U.K. insolvencies;
• the legislation would be retroactive, applying to such tax liabilities incurred at any time prior to insolvency; and
• it is likely to have a significant impact on asset-based loans (ABLs) involving U.K. obligors.

Introduction

“[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]

An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.