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.
There will be no further deferral of the entry into force of Legislative Decree No. 14 of 12 January 2019 (the new Italian Bankruptcy Law, also known as Code of the Business Crisis and Insolvency, "CCII"), which will fully replace the current Italian Bankruptcy Law.
There will be no further deferral of the entry into force of Legislative Decree No. 14 of 12 January 2019 (the new Italian Bankruptcy Law, also known as Code of the Business Crisis and Insolvency, "CCII"), which will fully replace the current Italian Bankruptcy Law.
On October 21, 2021, the Italian Parliament has definitively approved the conversion into law of Law Decree no. 118/2021, introducing "urgent measures concerning company crises and business reorganisation, as well as further urgent measures on justice" (the "Decree").
On October 21, 2021, the Italian Parliament has definitively approved the conversion into law of Law Decree no. 118/2021, introducing "urgent measures concerning company crises and business reorganisation, as well as further urgent measures on justice" (the "Decree").
Italian bankruptcy law: the new provisions brought by Law Decree No. 118/2021 and the so called "negotiated settlement procedure" aimed at solving business crises.
In order to support businesses to face with the economic and financial crisis caused by SARS-Cov-2 emergency, the Law Decree No. 118 of 24 August 2021 has introduced "urgent measures concerning company crises and business reorganisation, as well as further urgent measures on justice" (the "Law Decree No. 118/2021").
The Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.
A recent decision of the High Court of New Zealand provides helpful guidance for insolvency practitioners on how aspects of the voluntary administration regime should operate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
On 30 March 2020, the board of directors of EncoreFX (NZ) Limited resolved to appoint administrators to the company. By then, New Zealand was already at Level 4 on the four-level alert system for COVID-19.
The UK Court of Appeal has held that legal privilege outlasts the dissolution of a company in Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600.
Legal advice privilege applies to communications between a client and its lawyers. The general rule is that those communications cannot be disclosed to third parties unless and until the client waives the privilege.
In Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v PAG Asset Preservation Ltd [2019] EWHC 2890 the Secretary presented petitions under s 124A of the Insolvency Act 1986 to wind up two companies on public interest grounds. These companies were PAG Asset Preservation Limited and MB Vacant Property Solutions Limited (the Companies).
The Privy Council has rejected an attempt to block a cross-border liquidation on procedural grounds in UBS AG New York v Fairfield Sentry [2019] UKPC 20.