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 Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill aims to modernise and simplify the process for taking fixed security over moveable assets in Scotland.
Once enacted, Insolvency Practitioners (IPs) may begin to see real changes in certain aspects of the management of formal insolvency processes in Scotland. This insight sets out a high-level summary of the potential impact of the Bill for IPs if enacted in its present form.
1. Additional opportunities for refinancing
Insolvency Practitioners should be alert to the potential impact of new and proposed corporate transparency measures.
Companies House reform and the new Register of Overseas Owners of UK Property will be largely welcomed, providing more in depth access to more reliable information which will support IPs when carrying out their duties. However, some of the insolvency specific details are yet to be confirmed and IPs will want to watch this space. We have set out a high level summary of the forthcoming changes below.
In bankruptcy as in federal jurisprudence generally, to characterize something with the near-epithet of “federal common law” virtually dooms it to rejection.
After a period of significant inactivity as a result of the various temporary measures introduced during the pandemic, we are now approaching an insolvency cliff edge in the UK. In this video, senior restructuring and insolvency lawyers from TLT’s Scottish, Northern Irish and English offices discuss:
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.
Our February 26 post [1] reported on the first case dealing with the question whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case may redesignate it as a case under Subchapter V, [2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), which became effective on February 19.