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 30 June 2022, the English court handed down judgment and made a winding-up order in respect of Galapagos S.A., marking an important milestone in an almost three-year cross-border insolvency battle involving the English, German and European courts.
The decision also provides helpful guidance on the application of the Recast European Insolvency Regulation post-Brexit, as well as the extent to which pre-Brexit jurisprudence should still be considered retained in, or relevant to, English law.
Galapagos: The Facts
In the groundbreaking recent decision in Re Samson Paper Company Limited (in Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) [2021] HKCFI 2151 (“Samson”), the Hong Kong Companies Court (the “Hong Kong court”) has for the first time issued a letter of request to a court in mainland China under the new cross-border mutual recognition, assistance and cooperation arrangement between Hong Kong and mainland China (the “Mainland”) in relation to corporate insolvency and restructuring matters (the “Cooperation Arrangement”), which took effect on May 14, 2021.
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (the “Act”) received Royal Assent on 25 June 2020 and is now in force. As anticipated in our client alert of 26 May 2020, the Act represents the most extensive changes in the insolvency landscape since the Enterprise Act came into force in 2003.
The provisions of the Act contain both:
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”) was laid before Parliament on 20 May 2020 and represents the most extensive changes in the insolvency landscape since the Enterprise Act came into force in 2003. Many of the proposals were originally consulted on in 2016, but were not progressed in light of Brexit until the COVID-19 crisis led to an urgent need for rapid and responsive reforms. The Bill is expected to come into force in June at the earliest.
The provisions of the Bill contain both:
“[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]