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

The securitization or structured finance market has evolved from its early origins focused primarily on financial assets (e.g., mortgages, receivables, loans credit card accounts, etc.) to the world of non-traditional or esoteric securitizations with exciting new assets.

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.

On Friday, March 27, 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to approve the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) submitted by the Senate and President Trump just signed the bill. The bill provides for $2.2 trillion in emergency aid to ease the financial impact of the COVID-19 crisis.

This article was published in a slightly different form in the November 2016 issue of Futures & Derivatives Law by The Journal on the Law of Investment & Risk Management Products.

Introduction

On May 14, 2009, Judge Allan Gropper of the US Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, approved a US$400 million DIP financing package in the US$27 billion General Growth Properties, Inc. (“GGP”) Chapter 11 case. Judge Gropper’s ruling also included approval of GGP’s proposal to use cash flow generated by shopping centers, structured by GGP as bankruptcy remote, special purpose entities, to fund GGP’s ongoing central operations while in bankruptcy.