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.

On 9 April the Polish Parliament adopted a bill implementing the so-called “second chance” policy for businesses, pursued at the EU level.

The Act introduces a clear separation between restructuring proceedings and bankruptcy proceedings. As the latter are commonly perceived as stigmatising, the initiation of bankruptcy can hinder successful restructuring. The new Act introduces four new types of restructuring proceedings, i.e.:

Poland – protective and secondary insolvency proceedings can run in parallel in different Member States

Secondary insolvency proceedings may be begun in the member state where the debtor has an establishment, when main proceedings with a protective purpose are already pending in another member state, according to the ECJ.

Protective proceedings (known as ‘sauvegarde’ proceedings) are those where the debtor proves that he is not insolvent but is faced with difficulties, financial and otherwise, that he cannot overcome.