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.

There will be no further deferral of the entry into force of Legislative Decree No. 14 of 12 January 2019 (the new Italian Bankruptcy Law, also known as Code of the Business Crisis and Insolvency, "CCII"), which will fully replace the current Italian Bankruptcy Law.

There will be no further deferral of the entry into force of Legislative Decree No. 14 of 12 January 2019 (the new Italian Bankruptcy Law, also known as Code of the Business Crisis and Insolvency, "CCII"), which will fully replace the current Italian Bankruptcy Law.

On October 21, 2021, the Italian Parliament has definitively approved the conversion into law of Law Decree no. 118/2021, introducing "urgent measures concerning company crises and business reorganisation, as well as further urgent measures on justice" (the "Decree").

On October 21, 2021, the Italian Parliament has definitively approved the conversion into law of Law Decree no. 118/2021, introducing "urgent measures concerning company crises and business reorganisation, as well as further urgent measures on justice" (the "Decree").

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.

Italian bankruptcy law: the new provisions brought by Law Decree No. 118/2021 and the so called "negotiated settlement procedure" aimed at solving business crises.

In order to support businesses to face with the economic and financial crisis caused by SARS-Cov-2 emergency, the Law Decree No. 118 of 24 August 2021 has introduced "urgent measures concerning company crises and business reorganisation, as well as further urgent measures on justice" (the "Law Decree No. 118/2021").

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.

Case Background

When an individual files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the debtor’s non-exempt assets become property of the estate that is used to pay creditors. “Property of the estate” is a defined term under the Bankruptcy Code, so a disputed question in many cases is: What assets are, in fact, available to creditors?

Once a Chapter 7 debtor receives a discharge of personal debts, creditors are enjoined from taking action to collect, recover, or offset such debts. However, unlike personal debts, liens held by secured creditors “ride through” bankruptcy. The underlying debt secured by the lien may be extinguished, but as long as the lien is valid it survives the bankruptcy.