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 Italian government has postponed again the entry into force of Legislative Decree No. 14 dated 12 January 2019 (the "Insolvency Code"), taking into account the COVID-19 impact on the socio-economic scenario and the framework set forth by Directive (EU) 2019/1023.

By Law Decree No. 118 dated 24 August 2021 (the "Law Decree"), the Italian government has postponed the entry into force of the Insolvency Code, which provides for an in-depth reform of the Italian insolvency law.

Italy has fully integrated the European Account Preservation Order into its procedures alongside existing protective tools available to creditors, who can now also request that their debtors' bank accounts in the European Union be frozen directly by the account bank.

On October 18, 2020 Italy adapted its civil procedure rules to incorporate the European Account Preservation Order ("EAPO") (introduced by EU Regulation 655/2014, in force since January 2017 ("the Regulation")) as an additional protective measure in favor of creditors.

In Short

The Situation: The COVID-19 pandemic is having an impact on businesses across various sectors in Italy.

The Action: Further to the Law Decree No. 18 of March 17, 2020 (the "Cura Italia Decree"), the Italian Government recently enacted the Law Decree No. 23 of April 8, 2020 (the "Liquidity Decree"), implementing a number of additional measures aimed at mitigating the adverse economic impact of COVID-19.

Italy recently enacted a new insolvency code (the "New Insolvency Code"), which takes effect August 14, 2020.

The High Court of Hong Kong refused to allow a Chapter 11 Trustee to disclose a Decision from Hong Kong winding up proceedings in the US bankruptcy court. The US proceedings were commenced to prevent a creditor from taking action following a breach of undertakings given to the Hong Kong court in circumstances where the company had no jurisdictional connection with the US.

Following our previous article, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal following the High Court deciding that a moratorium in relation to restructuring proceedings in Azerbaijan could not be extended in breach of the Gibbs rule, allowing two significant creditors to proceed with their claims in the English Courts.

Despite the debtor's contention that his primary residence was in the United States, the Court held that it had jurisdiction to make a Bankruptcy Order following a petition presented by HMRC.

HMRC presented a bankruptcy petition against Robert Stayton on 30 May 2014 who owed approximately £653,640. The matter came before the court on a number of occasions before the final hearing, with judgment being handed down in November 2018.

A discharged Bankrupt had intentionally misled the Court as to his COMI being in England and Wales in order to obtain a Bankruptcy Order. Four years after the making of the Bankruptcy Order, the Court annulled it on the grounds that the Court did not have jurisdiction to make the Order in the first place.