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.

Amid ongoing economic uncertainty, businesses face growing – and sometimes insurmountable – challenges to remain viable, leading to a marked increase in accelerated or ‘distressed’ sales.

Distressed M&A describes a sale of shares or assets where the business is in financial distress. This includes, for example, companies that are undergoing restructuring or facing insolvency. The sale can be led by the company itself or an officeholder if the company has entered into a formal insolvency process.

As the economic outlook remains uncertain, businesses of all sizes and their boards are experiencing mounting pressure from various sources. In particular, directors of companies in financial difficulty face a number of challenges. Primarily, they must decide what they can do to keep the company in business without running the risk of committing an offence or incurring personal liability, and at what stage they must stop trading.

This article outlines some key issues and strategies that directors should consider when times are tough.

As challenging trading conditions in the UK economy persist, insolvency is a real prospect facing many companies. Businesses are increasingly likely to find themselves dealing with other businesses that are in financial difficulties or even insolvent. In such cases, the need to plan ahead, develop strategies to minimise problems and manage relationships with customers and suppliers should not be underestimated.

This article looks at some of the issues to consider when dealing with companies that are either insolvent or on the brink of insolvency and how to protect your business.

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

A 139ZQ notice issued by the Official Receiver is a powerful tool for trustees in bankruptcy seeking to recover a benefit received by a third party from an alleged void transaction. These include transactions such as an unfair preference, an undervalued transaction, or a transaction to defeat creditors.

Given the adverse consequences for noncompliance, a recipient of a 139ZQ notice should take it seriously and obtain legal advice without delay.

Section 139ZQ notices