On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy, an event considered by many to mark the beginning of the credit crisis of 2008–2009 and the unprecedented public policy responses that followed. Much has been written about the multiple contributing factors to the crisis, ranging from predatory lending to Federal Reserve interest rate policy.

Secured Creditor’s Priority Over Unremitted GST/HST: SCC Grants Callidus Capital Corporation Leave to Appeal

On March 22, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada granted Callidus Capital Corporation (the “Secured Creditor”) leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal decision that interpreted subsection 222(3) of the Excise Tax Act (Canada) (the “ETA”) as giving the Crown super priority to property received by a secured creditor from a tax debtor before bankruptcy.

On March 22, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada granted Callidus Capital Corporation (the “Secured Creditor”) leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal decision that interpreted subsection 222(3) of the Excise Tax Act (Canada) (the “ETA”) as giving the Crown super priority to property received by a secured creditor from a tax debtor before bankruptcy.

Le 22 mars 2018, la Cour suprême du Canada a accordé à Callidus Capital Corporation (le « créancier garanti ») l’autorisation d’interjeter appel de la décision de la Cour d’appel fédérale dont l’interprétation du paragraphe 222(3) de la Loi sur la taxe d’accise (Canada) (la « LTA ») donne à la Couronne la priorité absolue sur les biens reçus par un créancier garanti d’un débiteur fiscal avant la faillite.

“[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.

Bankruptcy courts may hear state law disputes “when the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26, 2015. Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, 2015 WL 2456619, at *3 (May 26, 2015). That consent, moreover, need not be express, reasoned the Court. Id. at *9 (“Nothing in the Constitution requires that consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court be express.”). Reversing the U.S.