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.

High rates of insolvencies look set to continue as the latest quarterly insolvency statistics have been published for England and Wales. Whilst the statistics show a 2% dip from the second quarter of 2023, the number of insolvencies remains 10% higher than in 2022 and shows a return to pre-pandemic levels for compulsory liquidations and administrations. It is particularly striking that the first two quarters of 2023 represent the highest quarterly insolvencies since Q2 2009.

The Government’s roadmap out of lockdown signals a return to trading for a number of businesses hard-hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. There is however potential for heightened financial distress in the coming period as existing support measures are withdrawn and currently deferred liabilities become payable, bringing the challenges faced by this sector into sharp focus.

The onset of COVID-19 has precipitated and accelerated substantial change for businesses in fashion retail, adding to particular headwinds already facing the sector in the UK. While many brick-and-mortar fashion retailers were already experiencing challenging trading conditions at the start of 2020 – ranging from rent and rates overheads to increased online competition – restrictions on and changes to consumer preferences resulting from the pandemic have intensified the challenges facing many fashion retailers and businesses operating in the supply chain.

“[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.