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.

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.

Le dépôt des comptes annuels est l'une des obligations légales les plus importantes pour les sociétés. En effet, à défaut du dépôt des comptes (dans le délai légal), la responsabilité des administrateurs peut être engagée. Ce manquement peut entraîner de lourdes conséquences ... même si cela ne se produit qu’une fois. Et un homme ou une femme prévenue(e) en vaut deux. Il va de soi que vous ne voulez pas vous réveiller avec une société qui a été dissoute judiciairement alors que vous y avez encore des actifs et des activités.

De jaarrekening neerleggen is een van de belangrijkste wettelijke verplichtingen van vennootschappen. Meer nog, bij niet (tijdige) neerlegging komt de aansprakelijkheid van bestuurders in het gedrang. Vennootschappen die hun jaarrekening niet tijdig hebben neergelegd riskeren verregaande gevolgen … zelfs na één keer. En een gewaarschuwd man of vrouw is er twee waard. U wil niet wakker worden met een vennootschap die gerechtelijk ontbonden werd terwijl u daar nog activa en activiteiten in hebt.

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

When an individual files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the debtor’s non-exempt assets become property of the estate that is used to pay creditors. “Property of the estate” is a defined term under the Bankruptcy Code, so a disputed question in many cases is: What assets are, in fact, available to creditors?

Once a Chapter 7 debtor receives a discharge of personal debts, creditors are enjoined from taking action to collect, recover, or offset such debts. However, unlike personal debts, liens held by secured creditors “ride through” bankruptcy. The underlying debt secured by the lien may be extinguished, but as long as the lien is valid it survives the bankruptcy.

A Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan requires a debtor to satisfy unsecured debts by paying all “projected disposable income” to unsecured creditors over a five-year period. In a recent case before the U.S.