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 Italian government has postponed again the entry into force of Legislative Decree No. 14 dated 12 January 2019 (the "Insolvency Code"), taking into account the COVID-19 impact on the socio-economic scenario and the framework set forth by Directive (EU) 2019/1023.
By Law Decree No. 118 dated 24 August 2021 (the "Law Decree"), the Italian government has postponed the entry into force of the Insolvency Code, which provides for an in-depth reform of the Italian insolvency law.
Italy has fully integrated the European Account Preservation Order into its procedures alongside existing protective tools available to creditors, who can now also request that their debtors' bank accounts in the European Union be frozen directly by the account bank.
On October 18, 2020 Italy adapted its civil procedure rules to incorporate the European Account Preservation Order ("EAPO") (introduced by EU Regulation 655/2014, in force since January 2017 ("the Regulation")) as an additional protective measure in favor of creditors.
In Short
The Situation: The COVID-19 pandemic is having an impact on businesses across various sectors in Italy.
The Action: Further to the Law Decree No. 18 of March 17, 2020 (the "Cura Italia Decree"), the Italian Government recently enacted the Law Decree No. 23 of April 8, 2020 (the "Liquidity Decree"), implementing a number of additional measures aimed at mitigating the adverse economic impact of COVID-19.
Italy recently enacted a new insolvency code (the "New Insolvency Code"), which takes effect August 14, 2020.
This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.
What happened?
This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.
BACKGROUND
This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.
What happened?
On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.
This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.
Background
Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.