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

In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize bankruptcy courts to confirm a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan that discharges creditors’ claims against third parties without the consent of the affected claimants. The decision rejects the bankruptcy plan of Purdue Pharma, which had released members of the Sackler family from liability for their role in the opioid crisis. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority decision. Justice Kavanaugh dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.

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 recent case of Re JD Group Ltd in liquidation; Bhatia v Purkiss (as liquidator of JD Group Ltd) a company director appealed a decision that he was liable for VAT fraud.

Background

Mr Bhatia was the sole director of a company trading in mobile phones. He was sent a HMRC notice explaining the risks of mobile phone trading and liability for involvement in VAT fraud.

Introduction

In times of economic uncertainty, fraud typically increases. And these are certainly economically uncertain times. Fraud has been on the rise over recent years and that trend is set to continue. The motivation and opportunity to commit fraud increases as financial pressures loom over individuals and businesses. We are also set to see a continued increase in insolvencies as the impact of the pandemic and other global events set in. The appointment of insolvency practitioners means frauds which might have otherwise continued or remained concealed are more likely to be uncovered.

While an insolvency process is not always welcomed with open arms, in fraud cases it can play a key role in uncovering frauds that might otherwise have remained concealed and may result in recoveries for victims. This is because an insolvency process paves the way for an independent investigation into the company's affairs and the directors' conduct to be carried out by an insolvency practitioner (IP).

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of the decision in BTI –v- Sequana.

At a time when many companies are facing financial difficulties and directors are considering their legal duties, this long-awaited judgment has confirmed that directors have a 'creditor interest duty' when a company is insolvent or bordering on insolvency or an insolvent liquidation or administration is probable.  

Background

What happens when a shady businessman transfers $1 million from one floundering car dealership to another via the bank account of an innocent immigrant? Will the first dealership’s future chapter 7 trustee be allowed to recover from the naïve newcomer as the “initial transferee” of a fraudulent transfer as per the strict letter of the law? Or will our brave courts of equity exercise their powers to prevent a most grave injustice?

In Stratford Hamilton (joint liquidator of Mobigo Ltd (in liquidation)) v James Mcateer, Teresa Delgaudio [2022] the court dismissed the directors' application to strike out misfeasance claims against them. 

Background