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.
El Tribunal Supremo recuerda que la prohibición de las sentencias condenatorias con reserva de liquidación debe interpretarse de manera flexible, atendiendo a los motivos justificados y razonables de cada caso en particular
Damos noticia de la sentencia del Tribunal Supremo núm. 1228/2023, de 14 de septiembre, que analiza una cuestión de enorme interés práctico, como son las sentencias de condena con reserva de liquidación.
Evolución de la normativa
The ruling emphasises the need to flexibly interpret the prohibition in light of the reasonable grounds of each case
The Supreme Court's decision on the interpretation of the ban on sentences with a reservation of liquidation – numbered 1228/2023 and dated 14 September – has significant practical importance.
Regulatory developments
The regulation of sentences with a reservation of liquidation has significantly changed over the years.
Commercial court powers have been amended to achieve the speed and efficiency required by EU regulations.
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.
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.