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.

Amid ongoing economic uncertainty, businesses face growing – and sometimes insurmountable – challenges to remain viable, leading to a marked increase in accelerated or ‘distressed’ sales.

Distressed M&A describes a sale of shares or assets where the business is in financial distress. This includes, for example, companies that are undergoing restructuring or facing insolvency. The sale can be led by the company itself or an officeholder if the company has entered into a formal insolvency process.

As the economic outlook remains uncertain, businesses of all sizes and their boards are experiencing mounting pressure from various sources. In particular, directors of companies in financial difficulty face a number of challenges. Primarily, they must decide what they can do to keep the company in business without running the risk of committing an offence or incurring personal liability, and at what stage they must stop trading.

This article outlines some key issues and strategies that directors should consider when times are tough.

As challenging trading conditions in the UK economy persist, insolvency is a real prospect facing many companies. Businesses are increasingly likely to find themselves dealing with other businesses that are in financial difficulties or even insolvent. In such cases, the need to plan ahead, develop strategies to minimise problems and manage relationships with customers and suppliers should not be underestimated.

This article looks at some of the issues to consider when dealing with companies that are either insolvent or on the brink of insolvency and how to protect your business.

“[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]

An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.