It has long been established that where the circumstances in which funds are advanced by a shareholder to the company in which they own shares is unclear, the court must consider the "surrounding circumstances" when determining how to characterize the advance. Historically, "surrounding circumstances" were understood to be the circumstances extant at the time the transaction was effected: (e.g., Ghassemvand v. Premium Weatherstripping Inc., 2017 BCCA 309 [Ghassemvand]).

The U.K. Financial Services and Markets Act 2023

The Court of King's Bench for Saskatchewan has rejected another attempt by a rural municipality to gain priority in an oil and gas receivership. This follows the recent Alberta Decision in Orphan Well Association v Trident Exploration Corp, 2022 ABKB 839, where the Alberta Court of King's Bench confirmed that the abandonment and reclamation obligations owed to the Orphan Well Association and the Alberta Energy Regulator rank in priority to claims of municipalities for unpaid property taxes in insolvency proceedings.

The U.K. government has published its much-anticipated proposals for regulating the cryptoasset industry. These proposals, currently in the form of a consultation, will see many (but not all) cryptoasset-related activities being brought within the regulatory perimeter for financial services in the U.K.

We previously discussed the Court's decision in Yukon (Government of) v Yukon Zinc Corporation, 2020 YKSC 16, which opened the door to partial termination of agreements in a receivership, an action generally considered to not be permitted in the past.

“[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.