Fulltext Search

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

This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Forex Capital Trading Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Invesus Group Limited [2024] NSWSC 867). Justice Ball determined that admission of a proof of debt by a liquidator was not akin to a judgment or settlement, and that such an admission did not create a new liability of the company.

In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (In the matter of Pacific Plumbing Group Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2024] NSWSC 525), Justice Black determined that a payment made by a third party was not an unfair preference because the payment did not diminish assets available to creditors.

Key Takeaways

The Federal Court in Morgan, in the matter of Traditional Values Management Limited (in liq)[2024] FCA 74, approved an abridged process that allowed the liquidator to admit debts of a group of unsecured creditors without requiring a formal proof of debt.

Key Takeaways

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.

In this week’s TGIF, we consider the Court of Appeal’s decision in Anchorage Capital Master Offshore Ltd v Sparkes [2023] NSWCA 88 and the challenges faced by lenders in accepting representations as to solvency and the financial position of borrowers.

Key takeaways

This week’s, TGIF considers the Court of Appeal’s decision in Westgem Investments Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd [2022] WASCA 132, handed down on 4 November 2022 in favour of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd and Lloyds Banking Group (Financiers).

Key takeaways

簡介

最近在Re Carnival Group International Holdings Ltd [2022] HKCFI 2668一案中,本所代表呈請人成功申請將嘉年華國際控股有限公司(「該公司」)清盤。該公司是一家在香港聯合交易所(「聯交所」)上市的百慕達公司。在本案中,法院澄清及確認其將外國公司清盤的司法管轄權。此外,法院命令就訟費問題將該公司董事(「董事」)加入為被告人,因此日後假如公司在欠缺理據的情況下反對清盤呈請,董事或須就呈請人及支持清盤的債權人的訟費承擔個人責任。

背景

該公司在百慕達註冊成立,並根據香港前《公司條例》第XI部註冊為海外公司,其股份在聯交所上市,股份代號 996。該公司是一家投資控股公司,持有在香港、中國內地及英屬維爾京群島註冊成立的附屬公司(統稱「該集團」)。該集團主要在中國內地經營主題式休閒及消費業務。