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.

Challenges to apparently prejudicial CVAs remain fraught with uncertainty but could provide a means of negotiating more favourable terms

An eagerly awaited appeal of the high-profile case of Lazari Properties 2 Ltd & others v New Look Retailers Ltd & others has settled, leaving landlords and tenants with no further clarity on aspects of company voluntary arrangements (CVAs), an increasingly litigious area in real estate disputes.

KEY POINTS

UK judgment is a prompt for landlords to consider all angles to maximise rent recovery in harsh economic conditions

The UK High Court has ruled in in favour of a landlord whose original tenant and guarantor were held liable for the rent accrued on a gym in Leeds despite the subsequent assignee operating under a restructuring plan.

Commercial landlords will have fewer enforcement options for debt recovery if the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (published 20 May) is enacted – which is expected by 3 June 2020. The bill introduces the anticipated prohibition on the use of statutory demands for rent recovery in most circumstances, as well as other provisions designed to protect tenants.

“[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]