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.

“[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).

On May 3, 2016 the Italian government approved Law Decree No. 59 (the “Decree”) which, inter alia, provides for new types of security and introduces streamlined in-court and out-of-court enforcement procedures. In addition, the Decree mandates the setting up of a centralized electronic register for security enforcement proceedings and insolvency and pre-insolvency restructuring proceedings. The Decree aims to facilitate financings and secondary debt transactions by reinforcing creditors’ rights and providing more flexible instruments to lenders and borrowers.

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.

With Law No. 132 of 6 August 2015 Italy’s parliament finally passed (with some amendments) Law Decree No. 83 of 27 June 2015 (as finally converted into law, the “Decree”), amending various provisions of Royal Decree No. 267 16 March 1942 (the “Bankruptcy Act”), the civil code and the code of civil procedure, and certain tax provisions. The amendments aim to facilitate debt restructurings, support distressed companies in their turnaround attempts, and foster quicker liquidations in bankruptcy proceedings.

On 23 June 2015, the Italian Cabinet approved Law Decree No. 83 which amends Royal Decree No. 267 16 March 1942 (the “Bankruptcy Act”), the civil code and the code of civil procedure, and certain tax provisions (the “Decree”). The amendments aim to facilitate debt restructurings, support distressed companies in their turnaround attempts, and foster quicker liquidations in bankruptcy proceedings.

Interim Financing