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 the context of the EU Directive 2019/1023/UE of 20 June 2019 (“Directive”) and in the aftermath of the Covid crisis, France has reformed its insolvency legislation. The purpose of the legislation is both to implement the requirements of the Directive into the French legislation, but also to tackle the consequences of the Covid crisis and endorse some of the measures that have been taken in this respect and have brought the number of insolvency proceedings to a historic low, as well as other measures.

Cass. Com., 10 mars 2021, n°19-12.825

Dans le cadre d’une procédure de liquidation judiciaire, un liquidateur a assigné directement et conjointement le dirigeant de la société et son assureur pour demander leur condamnation solidaire au paiement de l’insuffisance d’actif des sociétés sur le fondement des articles L. 651-2 du code de commerce et L. 124-3 du code des assurances.

Cass. com., 10 mars 2021, n° 19-22.385

L’article L. 622-24 du Code de commerce est clair : tout mandataire ou préposé du créancier peut effectuer pour le compte de celui-ci une déclaration de créance au passif d’un débiteur à l’encontre duquel une procédure collective a été ouverte.

En effet, cet article prévoit notamment (alinéa 2) que :

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.

The Southern District of New York recently reminded us in In re Firestar Diamond, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-10509 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. April 22, 2019) (SHL) [Dkt. No. 1482] that equitable principles in bankruptcy often do not match those outside of bankruptcy. Indeed, bankruptcy decisions often place emphasis on equality of treatment amongst all creditors and are less concerned with inequities to individual creditors.

Introduction

In Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., f/b/o Jerome Guyant, IRA v. Highland Construction Management Services, L.P. et al., Nos. 18-2450-52 (4th Cir. March 17, 2020), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld that a borrower’s indirect economic interests in a limited liability company (LLC) were not assigned to a lender under a conveyance in a security agreement assigning mere membership interests, pursuant to Virginia state law.

Facts