Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

On 7 December 2022, the EU Commission issued a proposal for a Directive harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law. In this article, we focus on insolvency avoidance rights from a Slovak law perspective and the impact of the Proposed Directive.

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.

On 28 June 2023, the Slovak Parliament approved the Act on Company Transformations No. 309/2023 Coll. (the “Act”). The Act incorporates several changes that may have an impact on the financing market in Slovakia.

1.Whitewash

Only a year ago, Slovakia transposed EU Directive 2019/2023 on preventive restructuring frameworks with an intention to reform insolvency proceedings and make them more effective.

Only a year ago, Slovakia transposed EU Directive 2019/2023 on preventive restructuring frameworks with an intention to reform insolvency proceedings and make them more effective.

Finance companies in Slovakia have felt endangered since 2019 when the Regional Court in Košice, acting as a second instance court confirmed a lower-court ruling that a financial party could be qualified as a related party in the eventual insolvency of the borrower as debtor.

On 16 March 2022, the Slovak Parliament approved the anticipated new act on solving threatened bankruptcy (the Act) and also amended related legislative documents. It implements the Directive (EU) 2019/1023 on preventive restructuring, whose implementation was postponed by one year to 17 July 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Act aims to reform insolvency in Slovakia and make preventive mechanisms effective enough to reduce the number of bankruptcies.

To whom does the Act apply?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.^[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.

Case Background

A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision^[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.