Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
Bankruptcy litigation can stem well beyond the primary bankruptcy proceedings. Continued litigation may be born out of disputes between bankrupts, bankruptcy trustees and other interested parties in respect of methods of asset liquidation.
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.
In LCM Operations Pty Ltd, in the matter of 316 Group Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2021] FCA 324, the Federal Court considered whether a third party who has been assigned a company’s claim by a liquidator breached the Harman undertaking with respect to documents obtained through public examinations.
What happened?
In SJG Developments Pty Ltd v NT Two Nominees Pty Ltd (in liq),[1] the Supreme Court of Queensland set aside a statutory demand served by the liquidators of NT Two Nominees Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (NT Two Nominees) on SJG Developments Pty Ltd (SJG). Costs were awarded on the indemnity basis and more significantly, were also ordered against the liquidators personally.
Recent changes to the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) (Act) have simplified the process for mortgagees exercising power of sale and do away with the need for a Court order.
Previously, a mortgagee was required to apply to a Court for a vesting order allowing it to exercise power of sale and to dispense with the requirement to give a Notice of Exercise of Power of Sale to the mortgagor.
In Yeo, in the matter of Ready Kit Cabinets Pty Ltd (in liq) v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation,[1] the Court considered whether payments made to the Deputy Commission of Taxation (DCT) by a director of the company, required under a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) were recoverable as unfair preferences.
In ACN 093 117 232 Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Intelara Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2019] FCA 1489, the court considered whether a “legal phoenix” arrangement entered into after receiving professional advice was in fact a voidable transaction.
The facts
Intelara Pty Ltd (OldCo) operated an engineering consultancy business and after experiencing financial difficulties in 2014 sought professional advice concerning the potential restructure of the company.
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.