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.

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.

Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 2

The High Court has unanimously dismissed an appeal against the Full Court decision in Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd v Bryant, in the matter of Gunns Limited (in liq) (receivers and managers appointed) [2021] FCAFC 64, finding that the “peak indebtedness rule” does not form part of s 588FA(3) of the Corporations Act and providing guidance as to how to approach the analysis required under that section.

Background

Re Intellicomms Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] VSC 228

The proceeding was brought by the liquidators of Intellicomms Pty Ltd (the Company) seeking relief in relation to a Sale Agreement dated 2021 between the Company and the defendant, Tecnologie Fluenti Pty Ltd (the Purchaser), involving the sale of certain business assets of the Company to the Purchaser.

Carna Group Pty Ltd v The Griffin Coal Mining Company (No 6) [2021] FCA 1214

In Carna Group Pty Ltd v The Griffin Coal Mining Company (No 6) [2021] FCA 1214, McKerracher J considered the meaning of “insolvent” within the context of a commercial contract and relevantly found that:

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:

Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd v Bryant, in the matter of Gunns Limited (in liq) (receivers and managers appointed) [2021] FCAFC 64

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