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.
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.
L’arbitrage est un mode consensuel de résolution des différends qui permet aux parties de personnaliser leur processus et même de choisir leur propre décideur. L’insolvabilité est le scénario diamétralement opposé, dans lequel les différends concernant le débiteur sont involontairement regroupés devant un seul tribunal d’insolvabilité.
Arbitration is a consensual method of dispute resolution in which the parties can customize their process and even select their own decision-maker. Insolvency is the diametrically opposite scenario, where disputes involving the debtor are involuntarily consolidated before a single insolvency court.
In Chandos Construction Ltd. v Deloitte Restructuring Inc., the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the application of the common law anti-deprivation rule in the context of a Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) proceeding.
When being sued, corporate and individual defendants should always confirm that the plaintiff has not been previously discharged in bankruptcy and failed to disclose the claim in the proceeding as an asset of the bankruptcy estate. In Guay v. Burack, 677 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012), the plaintiff brought numerous claims against various governmental entities, governmental officials and a police officer.
In Re Crystallex, 2012 ONCA 404, the Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously upheld unusually broad DIP financing arrangements granted pursuant to section 11.2 of the Canadian Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) despite the vociferous objections of substantially all of Crystallex’s creditors. By dismissing the appeal, the Court endorsed the supervising CCAA judge’s approval of:
In Re Crystallex, the Ontario Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”) unanimously upheld three orders of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“OSCJ”) that (1) authorized bridge financing, (2) authorized interim financing