Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
Legal proceedings need to be filed before the end of any relevant limitation period, otherwise they will be time-barred — often irreparably. There are various reasons why a person may delay commencing proceedings – for example, they may be waiting on litigation funding before prosecuting their claim or need more time to gather evidence in order to decide whether to proceed.
Two recent cases out of the Third Circuit and the Southern District of New York highlight some of the developing formulas US courts are using when engaging with foreign debtors. In a case out of the Third Circuit, Vertivv. Wayne Burt, the court expanded on factors to be considered when deciding whether international comity requires the dismissal of US civil claims that impact foreign insolvency proceedings.
The decision in RPPS v Brookfield is the first recorded instance of s 151 of the PPSA being enforced (with a $30,000 penalty imposed for an improper registration). It serves as a caution to those making spurious registrations, but reasonably diligent and responsible parties should have no cause for alarm.
The decision in RPPS v Brookfield is the first recorded instance of s 151 of the PPSA being enforced (with a $30,000 penalty imposed for an improper registration). It serves as a caution to those making spurious registrations, but reasonably diligent and responsible parties should have no cause for alarm.
Overview of section 151 of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009
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.
When a majority of a company’s board approves a tender offer in good faith, can it still be avoided as an actually fraudulent transfer? Yes, says the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, holding that the fraudulent intent of a corporation’s CEO who was a board member and exercised control over the board can be imputed to the corporation, even if he was the sole actor with fraudulent intent.
Background
Peter Bowden heads Gilbert + Tobin’s Restructuring + Insolvency group.
He specialises in front-end restructuring and insolvency and has significant experience advising hedge funds, banks, special situations groups, investment banks, insolvency practitioners, creditors and debtors on all elements of restructuring, insolvency, liability management, workouts, banking and distressed debt transactions in a range of industries including financial services, energy, mining, mining services, property, construction, agriculture and manufacturing.
Executive Summary
We are excited to share the inaugural edition of R+I In Brief, where we explore the past year of developments in the Australian restructuring and insolvency industry and provide our thoughts on the year ahead.
The 2023 edition of R+I In Brief includes a collection of articles and case notes we have prepared as well as some further commentary on issues we consider pertinent to the restructuring and insolvency industry.
It is broken up into three parts: