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.

Analizamos las principales novedades en materia de insolvencia internacional contenidas en el Proyecto de Ley de reforma del Texto Refundido de la Ley Concursal. Sin perjuicio del texto final que resulte aprobado tras la correspondiente tramitación parlamentaria, el capítulo dedicado a la insolvencia internacional es uno de los que menos enmiendas han recibido y, por tanto, donde previsiblemente se producirán menos cambios.

We analyze the main novelties of the international insolvency regulation introduced in the Insolvency Law Reform Bill. Although the final wording will be approved after its passage through parliament, the chapter on international insolvency is among those that received the fewest amendments and therefore is expected to see the fewest changes. We therefore predict that all or a large part of the comments made below will also be applicable to the wording of the Insolvency Law that will be approved at the end of the process.

The European Court has issued a sentence of special relevance for the operation and effectiveness of the “pre-pack” insolvency procedures. Specifically, it clarifies the requirements that must be met to respect the rights of workers in the event of business transfers.

El órgano judicial europeo ha dictado una sentencia de especial relevancia para el funcionamiento y efectividad de los 'pre-packs' concursales. En concreto, aclara los requisitos que se deben cumplir para respetar los derechos de los trabajadores en caso de transmisión de empresas.

“[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]