Fulltext Search

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.

The court-fashioned doctrine of "equitable mootness" has frequently been applied to bar appeals of bankruptcy court orders under circumstances where reversal or modification of an order could jeopardize, for example, the implementation of a negotiated chapter 11 plan or related agreements and upset the expectations of third parties who have relied on the order.

Up Energy Development Group Limited [2022] HKCFI 1329 (date of decision: 6 May 2022)

Introduction

The 3 core requirements are factors considered by the Hong Kong Court when deciding whether to exercise its discretion to wind up a foreign incorporated company in Hong Kong.

To promote the finality and binding effect of confirmed chapter 11 plans, the Bankruptcy Code categorically prohibits any modification of a confirmed plan after it has been "substantially consummated." Stakeholders, however, sometimes attempt to skirt this prohibition by characterizing proposed changes to a substantially consummated chapter 11 plan as some other form of relief, such as modification of the confirmation order or a plan document, or reconsideration of the allowed amount of a claim. The U.S.

Ozner Water International Holding Limited (In Liquidation) [2022] HKCFI 363 (date of decision: 27 January 2022)

Hong Kong Fresh Water International Group Limited (In Liquidation) [2022] HKCFI 924 (date of decision: 6 April 2022)

Introduction