Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
In 2023, we saw an increase in both voluntary administration and receivership appointments in Australia. In the context of Australia's economic climate this was unsurprising — debtor companies were grappling with volatile markets, supply chain disruptions and uncertain economic conditions, and secured lenders were invoking either or both of these regimes as a means of protecting their investments.
Investors in the Australian market are more sophisticated than ever and – unsurprisingly – so too are the restructuring transactions being promoted by these investors. One such transaction is the credit bid. While not a transaction structure that is formally recognised in Australia, a credit bid is a valuable tool in a financier's playbook that can be implemented to achieve a return where the original financing is unable to be repaid in accordance with its terms.
Credit Bidding
In today's globalised economy, local recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings can be essential for the successful implementation of cross-border restructurings. This is particularly relevant in Australia — a popular host for foreign investment and global corporate groups with local assets.
A creditors' scheme of arrangement ("Scheme") can be a powerful restructuring tool implemented to achieve a variety of outcomes for a business, ranging from deleveraging or a debt-to-equity conversion to a merger and/or issue of new debt/equity instruments. When managed appropriately, a Scheme can reshape a business' debt and equity profile, setting it up for an improved go-forward operating platform. Below we set out an outline of the Scheme process in Australia and consider some key features that are unique to Australian schemes.
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 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”).
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.
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.