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 the course of implementing EU directive 2019/1023 of 20 June 2019 on preventive restructuring frameworks, the German legislator intends[1], among other things, to provide for (i) a Preventive Restructuring Plan as flexible restructuring tool, (ii) further relief in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, and to make small but important changes to the general provisions of German insolvency code.
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.
- Introduction
The pace at which Corona-Pandemic restricts our way of life and imposes severe consequences on our economy is breathtaking. The results are already evident today with more to come. In widespread parts of the economy, current developments lead to considerable loss of income and drastic decreases in sales and profits.
- Introduction
The situation due to the coronavirus has resulted in a massive disruption and to some extent even in a complete standstill of public and social life with far-reaching consequences for the national and international economy. The recent border closures will have a further impact on the movement of people and goods.
As a result, the German Federal Government has announced that it will provide several instruments to reduce the impact of the situation:
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.
The judicial power of the United States is vested in courts created under Article III of the Constitution. However, Congress created the current bankruptcy court system over 40 years ago pursuant to Article I of the Constitution rather than under Article III.