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.

In the years since its independence, Ukraine's public and private sectors have faced one crisis after another. Notwithstanding different factors causing distress and incomparable peculiarities of each, restructuring has always remained one of the key mechanisms to make it through these difficult periods and get back on track. This includes the current crisis due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Even in the present unprecedent environment, inaction is not a solution.

In response to the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, lawmakers very quickly started working on improving the legal framework to enhance existing and develop new restructuring instruments. Contrary to expectations, not that many restructurings actually took place in 2020, likely because of support made available to businesses.

In a turning point for Ukrainian bankruptcy law reform, on 18 October 2018 the Ukrainian parliament adopted the Code of Bankruptcy Proceedings, which will replace the existing Law on Restoring Solvency of Debtors or Recognition of Debtors’ Bankruptcy that has been in force since 1992.

“[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).

Draft Law No. 3555 “On Financial Restructuring” (the “Restructuring Law”) aimed at creating effective mechanisms for voluntary financial restructuring of Ukrainian companies’ debts (the “Voluntary Restructuring”). The Restructuring Law is adopted as a temporary measure and will be in effect for three years. The Government expects that the Restructuring Law will result in reducing the amount of bad loans and restoring bank lending.

The main novelties of the Restructuring Law are as follows:

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]