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.

The Virgin Active restructuring plan judgment was released last week, with a resounding win for Virgin Active over the opposing landlords. Melanie Leech, on behalf of the British Property Federation, said, "This Restructuring Plan sets a dangerous precedent and demonstrates how the law is now allowing wealthy individuals and private equity backers to extract value from their businesses in good times but later claim insolvency, as simply a means to get out of their contractual obligations with property owners.

Virgin Active has been in the news recently, as it has proposed restructuring plans which rely on the new legislation found in the Corporate Governance and Insolvency Act 2020.

In this insight, we will explain:

Retail Company Voluntary Arrangements (CVAs) are becoming an increasingly popular means of minimising liabilities and creating breathing space for tenants during a difficult trading environment on the High Street. Where does this leave landlords?

2018 was the "year of the CVA", slashing rents and forcing landlords to get to grips with long-winded CVA proposal documents in an attempt to allow struggling tenants to manage their debts, turn around their businesses and avoid terminal insolvency situations.

The unfortunate reality is that even if they are approved by landlords and other creditors, not all these CVAs will be successful and many tenants are likely to end up in administration.

“[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]