Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
Should a corporation be affixed with the fraudulent or other nefarious intent of its directing minds? The answer to this question is of key importance in several contexts where the “intent” of the corporation leads to specific legal consequences.
One of the main advantages for a debtor to seek protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) or the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) is the stay of proceedings that prevents creditors faced with a default in payment from taking any action against the debtor. This allows the debtor, among other things, to reorganize itself or dispose of some or all of its assets under the court’s supervision. Be that as it may, there are exceptions.
Insolvency & Restructuring Bulletin
A recent court decision has provided clarity on the application of the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (“WEPPA”) to former employees of companies undergoing restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”). The central issue was whether WEPPA applies to employees who were terminated as a result of a reverse vesting order (“RVO”).
Background
Introduction
L’un des principaux avantages pour un débiteur de se placer sous la protection de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies (« LACC ») ou de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité (« LFI ») consiste en la suspension des procédures pouvant être intentées par un créancier faisant face à un défaut de paiement. Cette suspension des procédures permet notamment à la débitrice de se réorganiser ou de disposer de certains ou de l’ensemble de ses actifs sous la supervision du tribunal. Or, certaines exceptions existent.
In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Poonian v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), the Court determined that while disgorgement orders made by the British Columbia Securities Commission (the “Commission”) survive bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”), administrative penalties may not.
Question: Can a retirement fund organized under Canadian law qualify for a state law exemption requiring that it “qualify as a retirement plan” under the Internal Revenue Code?
This question gets all the way to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of appeals, which issues a “No” answer, in Green v. Leibowitz, Case No. 23-2841 (decided 7/16/2024).
Insolvency and Restructuring Bulletin
The general rule in bankruptcy is that a debtor receives a “fresh start” and is discharged from prior debts, but this is subject to certain exceptions. Subsection 178(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) sets out eight classes of debts that are not released by an order of discharge including an exception for debts that arise out of fraud. In Poonian v.