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.

Case Trends

In a unanimous decision, with concurring reasons, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has rendered its long-anticipated judgment regarding the intersection of insolvency and domestic arbitration law in Peace River Hydro Partners v. Petrowest Corp., 2022 SCC 41.

In bankruptcy as in federal jurisprudence generally, to characterize something with the near-epithet of “federal common law” virtually dooms it to rejection.

In January 2020 we reported that, after the reconsideration suggested by two Supreme Court justices and revisions to account for the Supreme Court’s Merit Management decision,[1] the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stood by its origina

Overview

This bulletin is the first of a Fasken series about the recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Yukon in the ongoing receivership proceedings of Yukon Zinc Corporation (“Yukon Zinc”), indexed as 2021 YKCA 2. The decision addresses several important issues, including: (i) the scope of Section 14.06(7) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”), which creates the Crown’s super priority charge for environmental remediation over the real property of a debtor; and (ii) Crown claims relating to unfurnished security or future costs.

It seems to be a common misunderstanding, even among lawyers who are not bankruptcy lawyers, that litigation in federal bankruptcy court consists largely or even exclusively of disputes about the avoidance of transactions as preferential or fraudulent, the allowance of claims and the confirmation of plans of reorganization. However, with a jurisdictional reach that encompasses “all civil proceedings . . .

I don’t know if Congress foresaw, when it enacted new Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Code[1] in the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), that debtors in pending cases would seek to convert or redesignate their cases as Subchapter V cases when SBRA became effective on February 19, 2020, but it was foreseeable.

Our February 26 post [1] reported on the first case dealing with the question whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case may redesignate it as a case under Subchapter V, [2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), which became effective on February 19.