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.

Are the courts of England and Wales establishing themselves as a flexible forum for cross-border enforceability? Here, we consider this question in light of two recent High Court decisions: Re Silverpail Dairy (Ireland) Unlimited Co. [2023] EWHC 895 (Ch) (Silverpail) and Invest Bank PSC v El-Husseini & Ors [2023] EWHC 2302 (Comm) (Invest Bank).

The Bankruptcy Protector

This term, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has authored a pair of opinions related to arbitration. The first of these decisions, Badgerow v. Walters, 20-1143, 142 S. Ct. 1310 (2022) came down on March 31, 2022, where Justice Kagan, writing for the 8/1 majority, held that a court must have an independent basis of federal jurisdiction to undertake a petition to confirm or vacate an arbitration award.

Section 105 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, titled “Power of Court,” is often cited and used as a “catch-all” provision when requesting certain relief or when a bankruptcy court enters an order granting (or denying) certain relief not prescribed by a particular provision of the Bankruptcy Code. That section provides that a “court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title . . .

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently issued an opinion that calls into question the long-held Barton doctrine following the dismissal of a bankruptcy case and thus the jurisdiction of that court. In Tufts v. Hay, No. 19-11496 --- F.3d ----, 2020 WL 6144563 (11th Cir. Oct. 20, 2020), the court considered where a litigant may bring suit against counsel appointed by a bankruptcy court after the bankruptcy case was dismissed.

In 2007, Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners, LP dba Foxwoods Casino Philadelphia (“Plaintiff”) secured a gaming license from Pennsylvania for $50,000,000 with the understanding that it open its casino business within one year. Plaintiff failed to do so and, despite a number of extensions, Pennsylvania cancelled and revoked the gaming license in December 2010. Without a gaming license, Plaintiff found itself in chapter 11 by spring of 2014.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion in Delaware Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc., Wilmington Trust, N.A. (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.) on June 19, 2019, in which it addressed distributions of assets pursuant to the waterfall provision of an intercreditor agreement in a chapter 11 reorganization.

The Dutch Supreme Court has confirmed the decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, which found that the bankruptcy of the Russian based oil company, Yukos, could not be recognised in the Netherlands because it violates Dutch public policy.

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.