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

In brief

On 29 February 2024, the court of appeal will hear an appeal against an order for the insolvent liquidation of a company that unsuccessfully argued, at first instance, that the petitioning debt was subject to a dispute covered by contractual agreements to arbitrate. While the interplay between insolvency and arbitration is not a new issue, the upcoming hearing will be the first time after the court of final appeal's decision in Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9 ("Guy Lam") for the court of appeal to clarify the principles.

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.

On 27 May 2022, the Honorable Mr. Justice Harris sanctioned a scheme of arrangement introduced by Rare Earth Magnesium Technology Group Holdings Limited, which was incorporated in Bermuda, to restructure its debt. The Reasons for Decision handed down on 6 June 2022 contain detailed discussions on, among other things, the use of schemes in cross-border insolvencies.

In brief

On 6 May 2022, the Honorable Madam Justice Linda Chan granted a petition for the winding-up (in Hong Kong) of Up Energy Development Group Limited, which was incorporated in Bermuda.

In brief

On 14 May 2021, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) and the Hong Kong government agreed a framework (“Framework”) for judicial cooperation in corporate insolvency and debt restructuring. Under the Framework:

In brief

On 14 May 2021, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) and the Hong Kong government agreed a framework (“Framework”) for judicial cooperation in corporate insolvency and debt restructuring.  Under the Framework:

In Shameeka Ien v. TransCare Corp., et al. (In re TransCareCorp.), Case No. 16-10407, Adv. P. No. 16-01033 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020) [D.I. 157], the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently refused to dismiss WARN Act claims against Patriarch Partners, LLC, private equity firm (“PE Firm“), and its owner, Lynn Tilton (“PE Owner“), resulting from the staggered chapter 7 bankruptcies of several portfolio companies, TransCare Corporation and its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors“).

Joining three other bankruptcy courts, Judge Thuma of the District of New Mexico recently held that the rules issued by the Small Business Administration (“SBA“) that restrict bankrupt entities from participating in the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP“) violated the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, H.R. 748, P.L. 115-136 (the “CARES Act”), as well as section 525(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Southern District of New York recently reminded us in In re Firestar Diamond, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-10509 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. April 22, 2019) (SHL) [Dkt. No. 1482] that equitable principles in bankruptcy often do not match those outside of bankruptcy. Indeed, bankruptcy decisions often place emphasis on equality of treatment amongst all creditors and are less concerned with inequities to individual creditors.