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.

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.

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.

Introduction

In Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., f/b/o Jerome Guyant, IRA v. Highland Construction Management Services, L.P. et al., Nos. 18-2450-52 (4th Cir. March 17, 2020), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld that a borrower’s indirect economic interests in a limited liability company (LLC) were not assigned to a lender under a conveyance in a security agreement assigning mere membership interests, pursuant to Virginia state law.

Facts

Setoff is a right that allows a creditor to offset a prepetition debt owed to a debtor with its prepetition claim against the debtor.  See In re Luongo, 259 F.3d 323, 334 (5th Cir.