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.
Floating charges are common features of finance transactions both in Scotland and in England, and share some characteristics, but these securities have different origins (the Scottish floating charge is a creation of statute while the English floating charge derives from common law) and other key differences which we outline below.
The Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill introduces a raft of fundamental changes designed to modernise and improve the law of Scotland in relation to transactions concerning moveable property.
A predicted wave of insolvencies on the horizon has been a recurring theme in the UK press since the start of the first Covid-19 lockdown. Most people would have predicted that forced closure of businesses and the restriction on consumers' ability to spend would lead to an increase in business and personal insolvency numbers. In reality, the wave didn't appear - at least not yet. In this blog we discuss the reasons why and whether the trends we are seeing might suggest a wave is coming in 2023.
What stopped the wave?
In Scotland claims (e.g. the right to payment) are currently transferred by assignation followed by intimation (i.e. notice) of the transfer to the party which is under an obligation to perform the obligation (e.g. making a payment).
In bankruptcy as in federal jurisprudence generally, to characterize something with the near-epithet of “federal common law” virtually dooms it to rejection.
In January 2020 we reported that, after the reconsideration suggested by two Supreme Court justices and revisions to account for the Supreme Court’s Merit Management decision,[1] the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stood by its origina
It seems to be a common misunderstanding, even among lawyers who are not bankruptcy lawyers, that litigation in federal bankruptcy court consists largely or even exclusively of disputes about the avoidance of transactions as preferential or fraudulent, the allowance of claims and the confirmation of plans of reorganization. However, with a jurisdictional reach that encompasses “all civil proceedings . . .
I don’t know if Congress foresaw, when it enacted new Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Code[1] in the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), that debtors in pending cases would seek to convert or redesignate their cases as Subchapter V cases when SBRA became effective on February 19, 2020, but it was foreseeable.