Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize bankruptcy courts to confirm a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan that discharges creditors’ claims against third parties without the consent of the affected claimants. The decision rejects the bankruptcy plan of Purdue Pharma, which had released members of the Sackler family from liability for their role in the opioid crisis. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority decision. Justice Kavanaugh dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.

Hungarian insolvency law already knows the concept of avoidance actions. Allowing creditors and liquidators to challenge certain transactions aims to protect the value of the insolvency estate. Although the principles of Hungarian insolvency law are the same as those outlined in the European Commission's proposal for a Directive (i.e. Proposed Directive), there are some aspects which would need to be carefully thought through before they are harmonised.

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.

The success of the recently introduced pre-pack-like rules in Hungary will help determined how the EU Directive on pre-pack sales will be implemented in this country.

Existing pre-pack-like rules

Emergency legislation has introduced important changes to Hungarian insolvency laws that allow the debtor’s business to keep trading during insolvency.

The new rules apply to those debtors who are considered strategically important to the Hungarian economy and to those whose insolvency is declared under other emergency rules.

Introduction

What happens when a shady businessman transfers $1 million from one floundering car dealership to another via the bank account of an innocent immigrant? Will the first dealership’s future chapter 7 trustee be allowed to recover from the naïve newcomer as the “initial transferee” of a fraudulent transfer as per the strict letter of the law? Or will our brave courts of equity exercise their powers to prevent a most grave injustice?

A foreign (non-U.S.) company can be dragged unwillingly into a U.S. bankruptcy case if the bankruptcy court has “personal jurisdiction” over the company.

A foreign (non-U.S.) company can be dragged unwillingly into a U.S. bankruptcy case if the bankruptcy court has “personal jurisdiction” over the company.