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.

The government has recently announced plans to extend the moratorium on evictions for non-payment of commercial rent - first introduced in March 2020 under the Coronavirus Act 2020 - to 25 March 2022. At the same time it has introduced legislation to extend the restrictions on statutory demands and winding-up petitions under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) to 30 September 2021.

Following a government announcement on 16 June, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 (the Regulations) have been laid before Parliament, coming into force on 22 June.

On 26 June 2020, the eagerly anticipated Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”) came into force. The result is that the changes made to insolvency law will now hinder the ability of landlords to recover unpaid rent from its tenants. We look at how the provisions of CIGA do this and the remaining options available to landlords to recover overdue rent.

What has CIGA changed?

(a) Statutory demands

Traditionally, Midsummer’s Day marks a time for festivities and optimism. But, as 24th June approaches, commercial landlords and tenants are unlikely to enjoy such sanguinity.

This article was first published by CoStar News on 5 June 2020 and can be seen here.

“[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]