Fulltext Search
Corporate minds do not all think alike: The Supreme Court affirms a purposive approach to the corporate attribution doctrine

Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

Canada, Company & Commercial, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, Supreme Court of Canada
There’s Something About (Hail) Mary: Appeals of Sale Processes and Pre-Receivership Sale Agreements

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.

Canada, Ontario, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, McCarthy Tétrault LLP
Second Circuit in AMR Corp. – “no make-whole” based on plain meaning of indentures and discusses consequences of section 1110 payments

The Bottom Line:

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Bond (finance), Default (finance), Title 11 of the US Code, Second Circuit
Stay here – Second Circuit in Residential Capital holds automatic stay can be applied to non-debtors where action has an immediate adverse economic consequence for estate

The Bottom Line:

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Real Estate, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Debtor, Mortgage-backed security, Federal Housing Finance Agency, Second Circuit, Fourth Circuit
Tarnishing the debtor’s Halo – police power exemption applied to private actions

The Bottom Line: 

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Telecoms, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Fifth Circuit
Giving credit when due -- Supreme Court denied confirmation of Chapter 11 plan that precludes credit bidding

The Bottom Line:

In a unanimous decision (with Justice Kennedy not participating), the Supreme Court issued a decision in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 2012 WL 1912197 (U.S. May 29, 2012), (“RadLAX”) in which it held that section 1129(b)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code does not permit a debtor to “cram down” a plan of reorganization that provides for the sale of encumbered assets free and clear of liens at auction without permitting the lienholder to credit bid at such auction.

USA, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Debtor, Secured creditor, Title 11 of the US Code, Seventh Circuit
Seventh Circuit takes the long view in defining insider status for preference actions

The Bottom Line: 

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Limited liability company, US Code, United States bankruptcy court, Seventh Circuit
Post-script – recent Enron “settlement payment” decision has first beneficiary

The Bottom Line:

USA, New York, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Bankruptcy, Unsecured debt, Security (finance), Default (finance), Subsidiary, Enron, Second Circuit, United States bankruptcy court, US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Now that’s settled – Second Circuit in Enron exempts redemption of commercial paper

The Bottom Line:

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Security (finance), Statutory interpretation, Safe harbor (law), Debt, Maturity (finance), Fair market value, Commercial paper, ING Group, Westlaw, Enron, US Code, Trustee, Second Circuit, United States bankruptcy court