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.

2024年4月，国务院印发了《关于加强监管防范风险推动资本市场高质量发展的若干意见》，明确加大并购重组改革力度，多措并举活跃并购重组市场。资本市场中产业链并购以及跨界并购已然成为上市公司实现产业整合、市场扩张的重要途径之一。本文拟从上市公司重大资产重组角度出发，对可能影响上市公司重大资产重组成功的事项予以探讨。

一、上市公司重大资产重组的界定

上市公司重大资产重组是指上市公司及其控股或者控制的公司在日常经营活动之外的购买、出售资产或者通过其他方式进行资产交易达到规定的标准，导致上市公司的主营业务、资产、收入发生重大变化的资产交易行为。其中资产交易的方式，除了购买、出售资产外，还包括与他人新设企业、对已设立的企业增资或者减资；受托经营、租赁其他企业资产或者将经营性资产委托他人经营、租赁；接受附义务的资产赠与或者对外捐赠资产等。上市公司通常对购买、出售资产是否构成重大资产重组较为熟悉，在与他人新设企业、对已设立的企业增资、受托经营、租赁其他企业资产行为中是否构成重大资产重组问题，因市场案例相对较少，故较为陌生。笔者理解其核心还是在于是否实质构成购买、出售资产的判断。

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.

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.

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.

We have blogged a fewtimes about the Supreme Court’s decision in Siegel v. Fitzgerald and its implications.

We have previously blogged about Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. 21-908, a Supreme Court case concerning the scope of the fraud exception to the dischargeability of debts in bankruptcy. Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code exempts from discharge “any debt . . . for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by . . .