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.

Introduction

Les cas d’insolvabilité commerciale devraient continuer d’augmenter à court terme en raison de la hausse des taux d’intérêt, des perturbations dans les chaînes d’approvisionnement et de l’augmentation conséquente du coût des marchandises. Une flambée des cas d’insolvabilité commerciale pourrait également augmenter la probabilité que les entreprises soient touchées par une procédure d’insolvabilité officielle en tant que créancier, fournisseur ou client, ou autrement en tant que partie prenante.

Introduction

Commercial insolvencies are expected to steadily increase in the near-term due to higher interest rates, supply chain disruption and corresponding increased commodity costs. A rise in commercial insolvencies will increase the likelihood that businesses will be impacted by a formal insolvency proceeding, whether as a creditor, supplier, customer or other stakeholder. It is, therefore, important for businesses to understand how to strategize in the context of both newly initiated and ongoing insolvency proceedings.

Commercial insolvencies are expected to steadily increase in the near-term due to higher interest rates, supply chain disruption and corresponding increased commodity costs. A rise in commercial insolvencies will increase the likelihood that businesses will be impacted by a formal insolvency proceeding, whether as a creditor, supplier, customer or other stakeholder. It is, therefore, important for businesses to understand how to strategize in the context of both newly initiated and ongoing insolvency proceedings.

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.

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