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 7 November 2014, OW Bunker A/S (“OW”), a global supplier and trader of marine fuel, filed for bankruptcy in Denmark. Further bankruptcies of OW subsidiaries and affiliates swiftly followed, including the bankruptcy of certain U.S. and Singapore-based OW entities.

In Gulf International Bank v Al Ittefaq Steel Products Co and others [2010] EWHC 2601 (QB), the High Court set out the factors that must be taken into account by the court when exercising its discretion to extend time for payment of sums due following an admission.

The case of D/S Norden A/S v Samsun Logix Corp & Ors [2009] EWHC 2304 (Ch) concerned international co-operation in insolvency proceedings under the UNCITRAL model law on cross-border insolvency. S was subject to insolvency proceedings in Korea. The English court, having recognised the Korean insolvency proceedings, had granted a stay on creditors issuing proceedings against S and its property.

In DHL GBS (UK) Ltd v Fallimento Finmatica Spa – Butterworths Law Direct 20.2.09 the Commercial Court gave its first decision on the issues dealt with by the ECJ in the Front Comor.