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

We recently blogged (here) about the Privy Council decision of Sian Participation Corporation (In Liquidation) v Halimeda InternationalLtd [2024] UKPC 16 (

The financial thresholds of the Small Companies Administrative Rescue Procedure (SCARP) have been increased, meaning that SCARP is now a potential option for a larger number of companies in Ireland.

SCARP, which was introduced in 2021, aims to provide a cost-effective restructuring option for viable but insolvent companies. It is available to small and micro companies as defined in the Companies Act and is not an option for larger companies, which must use other restructuring mechanisms.

The Small Company Administrative Rescue Process (SCARP) was first introduced on 7 December 2021, to provide a quicker and more affordable formal restructuring process to businesses in Ireland. SCARP allows businesses to restructure their debts by agreeing to a rescue plan with their creditors.

Can a creditor obtain a winding up order against a debtor company if the underlying dispute over the debt is subject to an arbitration agreement between the parties?

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.

Where a winding up petition is based on a debt arising from a contract with a non-Hong Kong exclusive jurisdiction clause, the court will tend to dismiss or stay the winding up petition in favour of the parties’ agreed forum unless there are strong countervailing factors.

In the current economic climate, more and more companies are getting into financial difficulties, informal workouts by debtor companies, with support from certain creditors, seem to be increasingly common.

When a company is in the so-called “twilight zone” approaching insolvency, it is well-established that the directors’ fiduciary duties require them to take into account interest of creditors (the so-called “creditor duty”).

Two recent cases, Re Guangdong Overseas Construction Corporation [2023] HKCFI 1340 (the “GOCC Case“) and Re Trinity International Brands Limited [2023] HKCFI 1581 (the “Trinity Case“), reaffirm