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.
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:
A Sheriff at Glasgow Sheriff Court has recently published a judgment showing its approach regarding the role played by a court reporter in an application by a liquidator to seek approval of remuneration.
The note concerned the case of One Optical Limited (in liquidation) (the Company).
This judgment is useful for insolvency practitioners in setting out how a court (in this case Glasgow Sheriff Court) views the role of a court reporter when approving (or otherwise) the remuneration of a liquidator.
On 4 December 2019, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in MacDonald and another (Respondents) v Carnbroe Estates Ltd (Appellant) (Scotland) [2019] UKSC 57. The appeal concerned the interpretation of ‘adequate consideration’ under section 242 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”) and the remedies that courts can apply if there is a gratuitous alienation, and inadequate consideration paid for the transaction in question.
The High Court of Hong Kong refused to allow a Chapter 11 Trustee to disclose a Decision from Hong Kong winding up proceedings in the US bankruptcy court. The US proceedings were commenced to prevent a creditor from taking action following a breach of undertakings given to the Hong Kong court in circumstances where the company had no jurisdictional connection with the US.
Following our previous article, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal following the High Court deciding that a moratorium in relation to restructuring proceedings in Azerbaijan could not be extended in breach of the Gibbs rule, allowing two significant creditors to proceed with their claims in the English Courts.
Despite the debtor's contention that his primary residence was in the United States, the Court held that it had jurisdiction to make a Bankruptcy Order following a petition presented by HMRC.
HMRC presented a bankruptcy petition against Robert Stayton on 30 May 2014 who owed approximately £653,640. The matter came before the court on a number of occasions before the final hearing, with judgment being handed down in November 2018.
A discharged Bankrupt had intentionally misled the Court as to his COMI being in England and Wales in order to obtain a Bankruptcy Order. Four years after the making of the Bankruptcy Order, the Court annulled it on the grounds that the Court did not have jurisdiction to make the Order in the first place.
On 31 October the Supreme Court handed down the judgment in the case of Dooneen Limited t/a McGuiness Associates v David Mond.
The judgment confirmed that a trustee is not entitled to property discovered after a trust deed has been terminated and the trustee discharged and therefore provides some much needed clarity for banks, debtors and trustees who face this situation.
The facts