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 response to the anticipated economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, on 31 March 2020 the Czech Government approved the so-called ‘Lex COVID-19’ and sent the draft law to the Parliament for expedited legislative processing. This article focuses on the implications of the Lex COVID-19 on the insolvency proceedings in the Czech Republic. For wider implications of the Lex COVID-19, please see this article.

The recent Amendment on the Czech Insolvency Act (the “Amendment”) enters into force on 1 July 2017.

The Amendment states that a creditor is entitled to be satisfied from its security even when its contingent or future claim (such as bank guarantee) becomes actual after the start of the security provider’s insolvency.

The new Amendment on the Czech Insolvency Act (the “Amendment”) will enter into force on 1 July 2017.

The Amendment introduces a “liquidity gap” test, which will be used when a debtor (entrepreneur) needs to determine whether it is considered insolvent or not. The liquidity gap is the difference between a debtor’s due debts and its readily available funds. A debtor will only be considered insolvent if the liquidity gap is higher than 10% of its overdue debts.

“[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.