Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

The High Court in England recently issued a stark warning to directors who fail to consider their duties to the company and its creditors when entering financial difficulties.

Background

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.

With the UK Government protections to prevent a flood of corporate insolvencies all now tailing off, will 2022 see the much talked about "tsunami" of insolvencies? Market views on that are mixed but it does seem certain that there will be at least a significant upturn in insolvencies compared to 2020 and 2021. With that in mind, it's worth considering the major differences between Scotland and England when it comes to corporate insolvencies.

1. There is no Official Receiver in Scotland

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.

At the end of September, Government protections that were designed to prevent a flood of insolvencies are set to be lifted. Specifically, the suspension of the provisions around wrongful trading will be over and creditors can once again seek to put companies who owe them money into liquidation. 

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

The last 12 months have seen frenetic changes in the field of insolvency law.  Some of the changes in 2020 were already in the pipeline before we'd even heard of coronavirus but were accelerated by it, some were brought in purely in response to the pandemic and others had nothing to do with it at all. 

CIGA

The majority of the changes to legislation apply UK wide and come from the most important piece of  insolvency legislation that we've see in a generation - the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 ("CIGA").

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?