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.
Re: Guangdong Overseas Construction Corporation () (in liquidation) (date of decision: 17 May 2023)
Introduction
Seahawk China Dynamic Fund [2022] HKCFI 1994 (date of reasons for decision: 4 July 2022)
Introduction
Up Energy Development Group Limited [2022] HKCFI 1329 (date of decision: 6 May 2022)
Introduction
The 3 core requirements are factors considered by the Hong Kong Court when deciding whether to exercise its discretion to wind up a foreign incorporated company in Hong Kong.
Ozner Water International Holding Limited (In Liquidation) [2022] HKCFI 363 (date of decision: 27 January 2022)
Hong Kong Fresh Water International Group Limited (In Liquidation) [2022] HKCFI 924 (date of decision: 6 April 2022)
Introduction
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.
Case Background
A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.