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 Hong Kong Court has power pursuant to section 327 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32) to wind up a foreign-incorporated company in Hong Kong. Before the Court can exercise its statutory jurisdiction, the following three well known “core requirements”, cited by the Court of Final Appeal in Kam Leung Siu Kwan v Kam Kwan Lai (2015) 18 HKCFAR 501, must be satisfied:

Since the signing of a record of meeting concerning mutual recognition of and assistance to insolvency proceedings between the courts of Mainland China and Hong Kong in May 2021, there have been a number applications for letters of request to be issued by the Hong Kong Court to the Bankruptcy Court of the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court.

Two recent decisions of the Honourable Mr Justice Harris are helpful additions to the growing amount of case law in this jurisdiction dealing with cross-border insolvency issues and are worthy of examination.

Hong Kong Companies Court appoints provisional liquidators for the purpose of seeking recognition in Mainland for the first time

In recent years the Hong Kong Companies Court has dealt with a large number of applications for recognition and assistance from the Courts of various overseas jurisdictions in relation to cross border insolvency matters. The Court will now routinely grant orders of recognition and assistance to liquidators of companies incorporated in Commonwealth jurisdictions such as the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands, which are all common law jurisdictions which have insolvency law regimes which are in many ways similar to Hong Kong’s own regime.

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]