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.
There will be no further deferral of the entry into force of Legislative Decree No. 14 of 12 January 2019 (the new Italian Bankruptcy Law, also known as Code of the Business Crisis and Insolvency, "CCII"), which will fully replace the current Italian Bankruptcy Law.
There will be no further deferral of the entry into force of Legislative Decree No. 14 of 12 January 2019 (the new Italian Bankruptcy Law, also known as Code of the Business Crisis and Insolvency, "CCII"), which will fully replace the current Italian Bankruptcy Law.
On October 21, 2021, the Italian Parliament has definitively approved the conversion into law of Law Decree no. 118/2021, introducing "urgent measures concerning company crises and business reorganisation, as well as further urgent measures on justice" (the "Decree").
On October 21, 2021, the Italian Parliament has definitively approved the conversion into law of Law Decree no. 118/2021, introducing "urgent measures concerning company crises and business reorganisation, as well as further urgent measures on justice" (the "Decree").
Italian bankruptcy law: the new provisions brought by Law Decree No. 118/2021 and the so called "negotiated settlement procedure" aimed at solving business crises.
In order to support businesses to face with the economic and financial crisis caused by SARS-Cov-2 emergency, the Law Decree No. 118 of 24 August 2021 has introduced "urgent measures concerning company crises and business reorganisation, as well as further urgent measures on justice" (the "Law Decree No. 118/2021").
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.
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.