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.

End of CIGA restrictions

On 1 October 2021 the temporary changes to corporate insolvency law, brought about by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) and which seriously curtailed creditors’ ability to present winding-up petitions between 1 March 2020 and 30 September 2021, changed.

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.

The coronavirus pandemic posed a significant challenge to the financial health of businesses across the UK. A sector additionally at the mercy of the markets following the easing of lockdown restrictions is the energy industry, with the wholesale price of natural gas (measured on a pence per therm basis) having risen dramatically from around 50p/therm in January 2021 to over 200p/therm during the first few weeks of October 2021.

The latest announcements

Suffering with mental health problems and being in financial difficulty are often strongly linked, with one frequently causing or worsening the other. The introduction of The Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 (referred to in this article as the ‘debt respite regulations’), which, with very limited exceptions, came into force on 4 May 2021, allows an eligible individual breathing space from any action a creditor may take for a ‘problem debt’.

Directors of companies have been facing, and continue to face, extremely challenging circumstances due to the financial impact of the coronavirus pandemic. The decisions they have taken through the pandemic to date have been made against a backdrop of unknowns: unknown closure durations, unknown projections and uncertain futures.

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