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.
Following our article on statutory demands (“SD”), if a company has received a SD and has failed to raise a legitimate dispute or make payment, then the creditor can proceed with a winding up petition. Winding up petitions play a crucial role in the legal landscape, particularly in the context of debt recovery and business insolvency.
A statutory demand (“SD”) is a formal written request for payment of a debt, typically issued by a creditor to a debtor. This legal document serves as a precursor to more severe actions, such as winding up proceedings or bankruptcy. Understanding the key aspects of a SD is crucial for both creditors seeking repayment and debtors facing potential legal consequences.
1. Purpose and legal basis
With the cost-of-living crisis and a possible recession facing the UK economy, it is not surprising that government statistics show insolvencies are rising significantly, with a substantial increase on pre-pandemic levels, and up to 80% higher than the previous 12-month period.
An emerging trend within insolvencies is the recovery of crypto assets, whether the businesses are within the crypto sector, or whether it is any other entity holding value in cryptocurrencies.
There has never been a more disruptive time for business. Brexit and the resultant uncertainty arising from the pandemic have dramatically impacted the business landscape over the last 18 months. No matter what the sector, and no matter how big or small the company, every business has been affected by COVID-19 in some way.
“[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]