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.

On 4 and 5 May 2021, the Supreme Court heard an appeal in BTI 2104 LLC v Sequana SA and others [2022] UKSC 25 and this week it gave its judgment. The length of the time taken to issue the judgment reflects both the complexity of the issues involved and the importance of the questions raised for company law in the UK.

The legal market in Scotland has changed over the last year, although perhaps not to the extent that anyone would have predicted. Firms have, in general terms, coped well with remote working and are beginning to cope well with hybrid working too. Traditional streams of work have been maintained and while some practice areas, such as insolvency and restructuring, have been quieter than anticipated, that has not had a significant impact on the bottom line. So, what can we expect in 2022?

1. Insolvencies will rise – even if we don’t experience the “tsunami”

We all know 2020 made an impact – and as we look at the year ahead, there are a few repercussions of the incredible strain placed on businesses that are likely to come into the limelight as a result. While there are some global trends in litigation – like litigation funding and class actions - some Scotland specific trends are also worth highlighting. With that in mind, here are the five key things for litigators to watch in the year ahead:

1) Frustration and leases in Scots law

One of the temporary measures that was not extended was the disapplication of the wrongful trading rules of section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 as regards the personal liability of company directors. The discontinuation of the temporary protection has been criticised by business and most recently by the Institute of Directors (IoD) which commented that "Failing to extend the suspension of wrongful trading rules was a mistake. Without this protection, the pressure is on directors to simply shut up shop when faced with difficulty". Is that concern justified?

For litigators the most important provision is the extension of the restrictions on the use of statutory demands and winding up petitions until 31 December 2020. The Act, of course, provides that no winding up petition can be presented on the basis of a statutory demand during the relevant restricted period and that where a winding up petition is presented (by a creditor on any basis) a court must be satisfied that coronavirus has not had a "financial effect" on the company before the presentation of the petition.

In Shameeka Ien v. TransCare Corp., et al. (In re TransCareCorp.), Case No. 16-10407, Adv. P. No. 16-01033 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020) [D.I. 157], the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently refused to dismiss WARN Act claims against Patriarch Partners, LLC, private equity firm (“PE Firm“), and its owner, Lynn Tilton (“PE Owner“), resulting from the staggered chapter 7 bankruptcies of several portfolio companies, TransCare Corporation and its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors“).

Joining three other bankruptcy courts, Judge Thuma of the District of New Mexico recently held that the rules issued by the Small Business Administration (“SBA“) that restrict bankrupt entities from participating in the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP“) violated the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, H.R. 748, P.L. 115-136 (the “CARES Act”), as well as section 525(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Southern District of New York recently reminded us in In re Firestar Diamond, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-10509 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. April 22, 2019) (SHL) [Dkt. No. 1482] that equitable principles in bankruptcy often do not match those outside of bankruptcy. Indeed, bankruptcy decisions often place emphasis on equality of treatment amongst all creditors and are less concerned with inequities to individual creditors.