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 Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25.

Basic facts

An important decision for employers and administrators has been handed down by the High Court in the case of R (Palmer, Forsey) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates' Court [2021] EWHC 3013. The Judgment acts as a stark reminder to employers and company personnel about the criminal liability they can face for failing to notify the Secretary of State of proposed collective redundancies as well as confirming that that an administrator can be prosecuted personally.

Background

The High Court has, for the first time since the introduction of the legislation in June 2020, refused to sanction a cross-class cram-down restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act. In In the matter of Hurricane Energy Plc [2021] EWHC 1759 (Ch), the court rejected a plan supported by bondholders because it had not been shown that the opposing shareholders had no better alternative prospects (i.e., the ‘no worse off condition’ had not been met).

Introduction¹

In order to obtain a bankruptcy order upon either a creditors', or a bankrupt's own, bankruptcy application, it must be shown that a debtor:

One of the largest bankruptcy orders ever made in the English courts (in the region of £870 million) has been set aside to allow a creditors’ meeting to take place in order to consider an individual voluntary arrangement. In (1)Gertner (2) Laser Trust v CFL Finance Ltd [2020] EWHC 1241 (Ch), Mr Justice Marcus Smith has held that unless a breach of the good faith rule can be established, it is inappropriate for the court to refuse an application supported by a majority of creditors to stay a bankruptcy 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.