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

In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 144 S. Ct. 2071 (2024) (“Purdue”), the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize nonconsensual releases of nondebtors as part of a chapter 11 plan. The Court narrowly read the Code’s language, providing that a plan may “include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with the applicable provisions of this title,” 11 U.S.C.

We have previouslyblogged about the section 546(e) defense to a trustee’s avoidance powers under the Bankruptcy Code. A trustee has broad powers to set aside certain transfers made by debtors before bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547, 548.

China City Construction Holding Group Co Ltd -v- Patrick Cowley and Lui Yee Man, Joint and Several Liquidators of China City Construction (International) Co Ltd [2024] HKCFI 219

The Hong Kong Court of First Instance (the Court) has examined the issue of the scope of information required to be disclosed by liquidators to creditors and whether the Court should exercise its discretion to order discovery if it is just and beneficial to do so.

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.

We have previously blogged about the section 546(e) defense to a trustee’s avoidance powers under the Bankruptcy Code. A trustee has broad powers to set aside certain transfers made by debtors before bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547, 548. Section 546(e), however, bars avoiding certain transfers, including a “settlement payment . . . made by or to (or for the benefit of) . . . a financial institution [or] a transfer made by or to (or for the benefit of) a . . . financial institution . . . in connection with a securities contract.” 11 U.S.C. § 546(e).

Federal law assigns to U.S. district courts original jurisdiction over all cases under Title 11 (the Bankruptcy Code) and all civil proceedings arising under Title 11 or arising in or relating to Title 11. See 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a), (b). Federal law permits each U.S. district court to refer such cases and civil proceedings to bankruptcy courts, and district courts generally do so. But bankruptcy courts, unlike district courts, are not courts under Article III of the Constitution, and are therefore constrained in what powers they may constitutionally exercise.

On 4 May 2023, the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) delivered a landmark judgment in Guy Kwok-Hung Lam (Respondent) -v- Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP (Appellant) Final Appeal No.13 of 2022 (on appeal from CACV No. 393 of 2021 [2023 HKCFA 9) (“Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam”).

Back on 4 May 2023, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (the “CFA”) in Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9 delivered a ground breaking judgment in relation to whether a foreign exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC) should be upheld in insolvency cases, upholding the Court of Appeal’s (the “CA”) judgment that, in an ordinary case where there is an EJC, absent any countervailing factors such as the risk of insolvency affecting third parties and a dispute that borders on the frivolous or abuse of process, the petitioner and the debtor ought to be held to their contract and to submit their disput

Section 544(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code enables a trustee to step into the shoes of a creditor and avoid a transfer “of an interest of the debtor in property” that an unsecured creditor could avoid under applicable state law. See 11 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1). Thus, for example, if outside of bankruptcy a creditor could avoid a transaction entered by a debtor as a fraudulent transfer, in bankruptcy, the trustee acquires the power to avoid such a transaction.