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 Act providing for court confirmation of a private restructuring plan (Wet homologatie onderhands akkoord (WHOA)) entered into force on 1 January 2021. It introduces a fast and efficient pre-insolvency procedure to restructure a company’s business through a scheme between the company and its creditors and/or shareholders, with the possibility of a court-approved cross-class cram down.

On Tuesday 6 October 2020 the Dutch Senate adopted the long-awaited legislative proposal for the Act providing for court confirmation of a private restructuring plan (Wet homologatie onderhands akkoord (“WHOA”)). The act introducing the 'Dutch scheme' will enter into force in the beginning of next year at the latest.

On 26 May 2020, the Dutch Lower House adopted the long-awaited legislative proposal regarding the Dutch scheme (Wet Homologatie Onderhandsakkoord (WHOA)).

This is an important step towards the entry into force of the proposal. The Senate still needs to approve, but this can usually be done much quicker and less debate is expected.

The Senate will discuss the procedure of the treatment on 2 June 2020. Once the Senate has voted and it becomes clear when the WHOA comes into force, we will post a new update.

“[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.