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.
When an individual or company purchases property in England or Wales, the legal title will transfer once the purchaser is listed as the registered proprietor at the Land Registry. However, what happens when, pending the registration of the legal interest, the seller company (who is still the registered proprietor) is dissolved? This is a risk seldom contemplated when purchasing property, but can have important consequences for the title of the property.
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (CIGA) came into force on 26 June 2020 and introduced a number of temporary and permanent reforms, with the aim of supporting businesses and the economy during the pandemic.
With two decisions (No. 1895/2018 and No. 1896/2018), both filed on 25 January 2018, the Court of Cassation reached opposite conclusions in the two different situations
The case
The Constitutional Court (6 December 2017) confirmed that Art. 147, para. 5, of the Italian Bankruptcy Law does not violate the Constitution as long as it is interpreted in a broad sense
The case
With the decision No. 1195 of 18 January 2018, the Court of Cassation ruled on the powers of the extraordinary commissioner to require performance of pending contracts and on the treatment of the relevant claims of the suppliers
The case
The Court of Cassation with a decision of 25 September 2017, No. 22274 confirms that Art. 74 of the Italian Bankruptcy Law provides a special rule, which does not apply to cases to which it is not explicitly extended
The case
With the decision No. 1649 of 19 September 2017 the Court of Appeals of Catania followed the interpretation according to which a spin-off is not subject to the avoiding powers of a bankruptcy receiver
The case