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.

Although not a new concept, use of the reverse vesting order (RVO) structure to effect distressed M&A transactions in proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA) has quickly gained popularity in Canada over the last year. At its core, an RVO transaction involves a transfer of unwanted assets and liabilities — the “bad assets” — out of a distressed company into a newly established non-operating subsidiary, leaving the distressed business entity with only the “good assets” left to be acquired.

Dans une décision récente, la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario (la « Cour d’appel ») a infirmé une décision de première instance, laquelle avait été source de préoccupation pour les propriétaires commerciaux qui ont comme pratique courante d’utiliser des lettres de crédit pour garantir les obligations prévues à leurs baux commerciaux.

In a recent decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario Appeal Court) reversed a lower court decision, which had created much concern among commercial landlords that routinely rely on letters of credit (LCs) to secure their commercial leases. The lower court limited the draw on an LC to the landlord’s preferred claim under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA), namely three months’ arrears and three months’ accelerated rent.

On May 8, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada (Supreme Court) issued its reasons in the restructuring proceedings of Bluberi Gaming Technologies Inc., now 9354‑9186 Québec Inc., et al.

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.