Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

The High Court in England recently issued a stark warning to directors who fail to consider their duties to the company and its creditors when entering financial difficulties.

Background

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 a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.

The statutory demand process

If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.

A recent court decision considers the legal principles and sufficiency of evidence when a court-appointed receiver seeks approval of their remuneration.

A court-appointed receiver needs court approval for the payment of their remuneration. The receiver has the onus of establishing the reasonableness of the work performed and of the remuneration sought.

With the UK Government protections to prevent a flood of corporate insolvencies all now tailing off, will 2022 see the much talked about "tsunami" of insolvencies? Market views on that are mixed but it does seem certain that there will be at least a significant upturn in insolvencies compared to 2020 and 2021. With that in mind, it's worth considering the major differences between Scotland and England when it comes to corporate insolvencies.

1. There is no Official Receiver in Scotland

At the end of September, Government protections that were designed to prevent a flood of insolvencies are set to be lifted. Specifically, the suspension of the provisions around wrongful trading will be over and creditors can once again seek to put companies who owe them money into liquidation. 

A Supreme Court in Australia has dismissed an application by a UK company’s moratorium restructuring practitioners for recognition of a UK moratorium and ordered that the company be wound up under Australian law.

The decision provides insights into the interaction between cross-border insolvencies and the winding up in Australia of foreign companies under Australian law.

Introduction

In the matter of Hydrodec Group Plc [2021] NSWSC 755, delivered 24 June 2021, the New South Wales Supreme Court:

It is possible for a trustee in bankruptcy to make a claim to property held by a bankrupt on trust. For example, by lodging a caveat over a home that is held on trust.

A trustee in bankruptcy may be able to make a claim, relying on the bankrupt’s right of indemnity as trustee of the trust. This is because the bankrupt’s right of indemnity, as trustee, is itself property that vests in the trustee in bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

Explaining a trustee’s right of indemnity

The last 12 months have seen frenetic changes in the field of insolvency law.  Some of the changes in 2020 were already in the pipeline before we'd even heard of coronavirus but were accelerated by it, some were brought in purely in response to the pandemic and others had nothing to do with it at all. 

CIGA

The majority of the changes to legislation apply UK wide and come from the most important piece of  insolvency legislation that we've see in a generation - the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 ("CIGA").