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

Hungarian insolvency law already knows the concept of avoidance actions. Allowing creditors and liquidators to challenge certain transactions aims to protect the value of the insolvency estate. Although the principles of Hungarian insolvency law are the same as those outlined in the European Commission's proposal for a Directive (i.e. Proposed Directive), there are some aspects which would need to be carefully thought through before they are harmonised.

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.

Emergency legislation has introduced important changes to Hungarian insolvency laws that allow the debtor’s business to keep trading during insolvency.

The new rules apply to those debtors who are considered strategically important to the Hungarian economy and to those whose insolvency is declared under other emergency rules.

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.

Hungary has passed an Act that implements EU Directive 2019/1023 on preventive restructuring frameworks, the discharge of debt and disqualifications, and on measures to increase the efficiency of procedures concerning restructuring, insolvency and discharge of debt (amending EU Directive 2017/1132). This new Act was published in Hungary's Official Gazette on 3 June 2021 and will come into force on 1 July 2022.

The Hungarian government has recently introduced a new restructuring tool with the aim of supporting companies suffering from financial difficulties due to COVID-19.

Financially distressed companies will receive an automatic stay while the company puts together a reorganisation plan, which will be supervised by a court and evaluated by a court-appointed expert.

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.

Case Background

The Hungarian National Bank (MNB) has issued its updated management circular for the treatment of outstanding loans affected by legislative moratoria.

In line with the European Banking Authority (EBA) position, the MNB states that it not necessary to automatically qualify a customer loan as being defaulted or restructured (and thus the creation of higher provisions is not necessary) if the loan fell under the Hungarian legislative moratoria for up to nine months prior to the expiry date of the second moratorium on 30 June 2021.