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.

On 24 February 2021, the UK government laid The Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc. to Connected Persons) Regulations 2021 before Parliament.

These draft regulations introduce (among other items) new restrictions on “pre-pack” disposals to connected persons and are seemingly a policy response to growing criticism around the inequity of pre-pack sales.

Despite the ongoing global pandemic, opportunities for stressed and distressed investments have not been as prolific as many expected. The window for entry into credits opened and closed more quickly than imagined. Nevertheless there have been several high-profile restructurings using the English scheme of arrangement. Of course, some of these were already in motion prior to the onset of the pandemic. A handful of these have sought to test the recently enacted insolvency regime, whilst others have tested more established legislative principles.

The enacted Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (the Act) introduces three permanent reforms to the existing insolvency legislation and certain temporary measures designed to address the immediate impact of COVID-19 on UK businesses. Among other things, the Act looks to maximise the potential for struggling companies to be maintained as a going concern. As market participants and the courts get to grips with the new legislation, it is clear that there will be some impact on the special situations landscape and the business of stressed and distressed investment.

Permanent Reforms

Moratorium: a new stand-alone moratorium to provide businesses with an initial 20-business-day stay from creditor action.

“[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]