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.
The Insolvency Service recently published a consultation with respect to the proposed implementation of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law ("UNCITRAL") Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments, which concerns cross-border recognition of judgments associated with insolvency proceedings, an
Regulated firms using company or insolvency law procedures to manage their liabilities could face action by the FCA if their proposals unfairly benefit them at the expense of their customers. The FCA has put forward draft guidance setting out the new role which it would have when a regulated firm proposes a compromise, what information it expects to be provided and the key factors which the FCA will consider.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.
Case Background
A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.
Kwasi Kwarteng, UK Business and Energy Secretary is reported to have said on 20 September that “My task is to ensure that any energy supplier failures cause the least amount of disruption to consumers”.
Wholesale day-ahead gas prices in the UK are reported to have jumped some 9% on 20 September alone. The rise is as a result of a number of factors including increased demand in Asia, lower supplies of gas from Russia and increase in demand as countries emerge from lockdown restrictions and economies start to pick up once more.
On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.
Case Background
When an individual files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the debtor’s non-exempt assets become property of the estate that is used to pay creditors. “Property of the estate” is a defined term under the Bankruptcy Code, so a disputed question in many cases is: What assets are, in fact, available to creditors?
