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

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.

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”).

Hill Dickinson’s Hong Kong Commercial and Insolvency Disputes team acted for the successful respondent 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).

“[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]

An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.