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 2015, Justice Wilson-Siegel approved a new form of vesting order, referred to as the "reverse vesting order" (or RVO) as part of the restructuring in Plasco Energy (Re). An RVO is a court order that transfers unwanted assets and liabilities out of a debtor company into a (oftentimes newly incorporated) affiliated company, referred to as "ResidualCo." The debtor company is left holding only the assets and liabilities the purchaser wants to acquire.

Many describe the United States as Canada's most important trade partner. Cross-border insolvency proceedings between the two jurisdictions are frequent and the recognition by one country's court of the other's bankruptcy orders is an important tool in facilitating the restructuring of companies with operations that spread across North America. A recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal (leave to appeal of which was denied by the Supreme Court of Canada) invites us to reflect on the delicate balance between comity for foreign orders and Canada's sovereignty over domestic laws.

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.

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”).

On June 19, 2019, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Third Eye Capital Corporation v. Ressources Dianor Inc./Dianor Resources Inc. [1], addressing the following issues:

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.

1. Introduction

Few issues in bankruptcy create as much contention as disputes regarding the right of setoff. This was recently highlighted by a decision in the chapter 11 case of Orexigen Therapeutics in the District of Delaware.