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 full strength of the economic headwinds facing the UK economy is not yet clear, but a helpful recent report by insolvency and restructuring adviser Begbies Traynor provided some useful numbers around the attitudes of businesses.
Global Perspectives on Insolvency, Restructuring & Dispute Resolution
As primarily offshore lawyers, we speak on a daily basis with onshore counsel, banks, asset managers, trustees, corporates, insolvency practitioners and individuals around the world. Those conversations give our Global Insolvency & Dispute Resolution Practice Group a unique perspective on the different market trends and their regional impact in 2022.
The right of a creditor who is owed a liquidated debt that is not subject to a bona fide and substantial dispute to have the debtor company wound up if that debt is not paid in accordance with its terms is fundamental to the proper functioning of any modern financial system.
The Channel Islands of Guernsey and Jersey did not introduce emergency insolvency legislation as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and do not presently have measures equivalent to those found in the UK’s Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act, 2020 (“CIGA”).
“[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]