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.

Nach der Implementierung des StaRUG-Verfahrens in 2021 zeichnet sich abermalig die Einführung eines neuen sanierungsrechtlichen Verfahrens ab. Auch wenn der europäische Gesetzgebungsprozess sich noch in einem frühen Stadium befindet, verspricht die bisher angedachte Art und Weise der Umsetzung der gesetzlichen Änderungen sowohl für (potentielle) Schuldner als auch für die übrigen Beteiligten im insolvenznahen Umfeld weitreichende Folgen zu haben.

Der BGH hat mit Entscheidung vom 27. Oktober 2022 (IX ZR 145/21) eine langwährende, insolvenzrechtliche Streitigkeit entschieden. In seiner Entscheidung nahm der BGH an, dass sich das Verwertungsrecht des Insolvenzverwalters nach § 166 InsO nicht auf sonstige Rechte erstreckt. Dies legt einen lange bestehenden und intensiv geführten Streit bei, ob sich das Verwertungsrecht neben beweglichen Sachen im Besitz des Verwalters und abgetretenen Forderungen auch auf sonstige Rechte wie insbesondere verpfändete Gesellschaftsanteile oder abgetretene oder verpfändete IP-Rechte erstreckt.

In its decision of October 27, 2022 (IX ZR 145/21), the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled on a long-running dispute under German insolvency law. In its decision, the Court assumed that the insolvency administrator's right of realization under section 166 German Insolvency Code (InsO) does not extend to other rights.

Wirecard's insolvency administrator has won a first victory before the Munich I Regional Court. On 5 May, the court declared the annual financial statements for 2017 and 2018, which show balance sheet profits totalling around EUR 600 million, null and void. Dividends of around EUR 47 million were distributed to Wirecard's shareholders from these profits, which probably never existed. As a consequence of the nullity of the annual accounts, the resolutions on the utilisation of the balance sheet profits are also null and void.

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.

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?