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 Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has released Regulatory Guide 217 (RG 217) to assist directors in understanding and complying with their duty to prevent insolvent trading under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act). It should be noted from the outset that ASIC regulatory guides indicate ASIC’s policy on specific issues, they do not have legislative force or constitute legal advice. Insolvent trading involves complex legal and accounting issues and it is therefore recommended that you seek professional advice to find out how the Act may apply to you.

The High Court’s recent decision in Bofinger v Kingsway involves the law respecting sureties, their obligation to indemnify the creditor and right to indemnity by the principal debtor, and the operation of the doctrine of equity associated with the term “subrogation”.