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.
In the latest judgment regarding the DPH liquidation,(1) the BVI Court of Appeal upheld the appointment of BVI provisional liquidators in respect of a Swiss company and clarified that evidence of dissipation of assets (in the Mareva sense) may not be a pre-condition to the appointment of provisional liquidators.
A recent BVI Court of Appeal decision in KMG International NV v DP Holding SA serves as a useful reminder to keep an eye on the clock when seeking the appointment of liquidators to a company in the British Virgin Islands.
KMG had filed an originating application seeking the appointment of liquidators to DPH (a company incorporated in Switzerland) and had successfully applied for:
The recent BVI Court of Appeal decision in KMG International NV v DP Holding SA serves as a useful reminder to keep an eye on the clock when seeking the appointment of liquidators to a company in the BVI.