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 (

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”).

In Hunt v Singh, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's landmark decision in BTI v Sequana (see our alert) in deciding when the directors' duty to creditors arose.

Background

Marylebone Warwick Balfour Management Limited (the Company), entered a tax avoidance scheme between 2002 and 2010 which the directors, on professional advice, believed to be valid.

On 5 July 2023 the Court sanctioned Prezzo Investco Ltd's (Prezzo) restructuring plan despite strong opposition by UK tax authority, HMRC.

HMRC has taken a more active approach to opposing restructuring plans and was successful in blocking the plans recently proposed by GAS and Nasmyth (see our alert).

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