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.

Introduction

On March 30, 2022, in the context of receivership proceedings of Balanced Energy Oilfield Services Inc., Balanced Energy Oilfield Services (USA) Inc. and Balanced Energy Holdings Inc. (collectively, the Debtors), the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (the Court) issued an order, among other things

Introduction

On March 30, 2022, in the context of receivership proceedings of Balanced Energy Oilfield Services Inc., Balanced Energy Oilfield Services (USA) Inc. and Balanced Energy Holdings Inc. (collectively, the Debtors), the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (the Court) issued an order, among other things

Introduction

On August 29, 2019, the majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal held in Canada v. Canada North Group Inc., 2019 ABCA 314 (Canada North) that priming charges granted in a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) Initial Order can have priority over the Crown’s deemed trust for unremitted source deductions. ^[1]

Background

“[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]