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.
On 30 April 2021, reforms to the UK’s regime governing sales in administration by way of a ‘pre-pack’ to a connected party purchaser came into force.
The centrepiece of the reforms is a new requirement for a connected party purchaser to obtain an opinion from an independent ‘evaluator’ on whether the terms of the sale are reasonable.
While the reforms add additional process points that must be navigated in relevant cases, they will bring improved transparency to an important rescue tool which has, at times, attracted warranted criticism.
On 20 January 2021, the UK High Court approved the convening of a single scheme meeting for certain aircraft lessors of MAB Leasing Limited (MABL) in relation its proposed UK scheme of arrangement. This is an important step towards the implementation of a wider restructuring for the Malaysia Airlines group, but may also have wider implications on the restructuring options available not only to airlines, but also to businesses with other leased assets, including real estate.
Lessors form a single class
On 6 September 2020, the England and Wales High Court approved the second scheme of arrangement proposed by Codere (an international gaming group) in a little over five years, following a fully contested convening hearing spread over three days.
In the convening judgment ([2020] EWHC 2441 (Ch)), the Court concluded that the various fees payable to the members of an ad hoc committee of scheme creditors did not fracture the single class proposed by Codere.
“[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.