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.

We recently reported on Delaware Judge Christopher Sontchi’s decision in the Extraction bankruptcy to permit the rejection of midstream gathering agreements.¹ Fellow Delaware Judge Karen Owens followed Extraction in the Southland Royalty decision issued November 13, 2020.² Judge Owens determined that Southland Royalty Company, LLC (“Southland”), an E&P operator with assets primarily in Wyoming, could reject the gas gathering agreement and sell its assets free and clear of the agreement.

In the latest saga concerning “covenants running with the land” and the rejection of midstream gathering agreements under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code (the Code), the Honorable Christopher Sontchi, Chief Judge of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court (the Court), issued three¹ decisions holding that certain of Extraction Oil & Gas, Inc.’s (Extraction) gathering agreements with its midstream service providers did not create real property interests and, thus, that Extraction could reject such gathering agreements in its chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

My latest contribution to BloombergLaw was the following piece on some of the unique issues and challenges presented for self-insured employers and their plan administrators when those employers seek (or contemplate) bankruptcy relief. In brief:

Potentially casting retail landlords against their debtor-tenants, a bankruptcy judge in the Eastern District of Virginia--an increasingly popular destination for major retail bankruptcy filings--allowed Pier 1 and its affiliates to effectively "shelter in place" while the majority of its stores remain closed across the country.

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.