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.

On 16 December 2011 the special administrators of MF Global UK Limited ("MFG UK") published their proposals for achieving the purpose of the special administration.

Purpose of the proposals

The special administration of MFG has three statutory objectives:

On October 31, 2011 (the “Petition Date”), MF Global, which up to that point had been one of the world’s largest broker/dealer firms, was plunged into insolvency on both sides of the pond. On the Petition Date, MF Global Holdings, Ltd. and MF Global Finance USA, Inc. (the “US Debtors”) each filed voluntary bankruptcy petitions under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Contemporaneously with the U.S. bankruptcy filings, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation initiated the liquidation of MF Global, Inc., the U.S.

We are starting to see signs of movement from the special administrators in relation to clients and creditors who have exposure to MF Global UK Limited ("MF Global UK").

The first day hearings in the Chapter 11 cases of MF Global Holdings Ltd and MF Global Finance USA Inc (together the "Debtors") were held on 1 November 2011 before Judge Martin Glenn in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Bankruptcy Court").