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 UK Government has announced changes to the regime for winding-up petitions. With effect from 1 October 2021, some of the protections currently afforded to businesses against aggressive debt recovery action are being phased out.
The changes are intended to avoid a 'cliff edge' for debtor companies when the current measures lapse at the end of September 2021, and have a tapering effect to avoid the flood of winding-up petitions that might otherwise be expected.
What are the current restrictions (in place until 30 September 2021)?
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act received Royal Assent on 25 June 2020. It implements the measures announced by the UK government on 23 April 2020 to safeguard against aggressive rent collection tactics. It follows the ban on forfeiture for non-payment of rent contained in the Coronavirus Act 2020 which came into effect on 25 March 2020. In this article, DLA Piper’s experienced Real Estate and Restructuring lawyers assess the debt collection restrictions contained in both Acts.
On 23 April 2020, the UK Government announced that the use of statutory demands and winding-up petitions would be restricted to ‘safeguard the UK high street against aggressive debt recovery actions' during the COVID-19 pandemic.
On 23 April 2020, the UK Government announced that the use of statutory demands and winding-up petitions would be restricted to ‘safeguard the UK high street against aggressive debt recovery actions' during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.
In a world of multinational businesses, ever-changing consumer trends and political uncertainties, insolvencies and financial restructurings of a cross-border nature are a common occurrence. Officeholders therefore frequently need to consider options that allow, at the very least, recognition of their appointment in the jurisdictions where the insolvent debtor has (or had) operations, assets or other relevant connections.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).
The Supreme Court this week resolved a long-standing open issue regarding the treatment of trademark license rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of Mission Products, a licensee under a trademark license agreement that had been rejected in the chapter 11 case of Tempnology, the debtor-licensor, determining that the rejection constituted a breach of the agreement but did not rescind it.