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.

Following our article on statutory demands (“SD”), if a company has received a SD and has failed to raise a legitimate dispute or make payment, then the creditor can proceed with a winding up petition. Winding up petitions play a crucial role in the legal landscape, particularly in the context of debt recovery and business insolvency.

A statutory demand (“SD”) is a formal written request for payment of a debt, typically issued by a creditor to a debtor. This legal document serves as a precursor to more severe actions, such as winding up proceedings or bankruptcy. Understanding the key aspects of a SD is crucial for both creditors seeking repayment and debtors facing potential legal consequences.

1. Purpose and legal basis

With the cost-of-living crisis and a possible recession facing the UK economy, it is not surprising that government statistics show insolvencies are rising significantly, with a substantial increase on pre-pandemic levels, and up to 80% higher than the previous 12-month period.

An emerging trend within insolvencies is the recovery of crypto assets, whether the businesses are within the crypto sector, or whether it is any other entity holding value in cryptocurrencies.

There has never been a more disruptive time for business. Brexit and the resultant uncertainty arising from the pandemic have dramatically impacted the business landscape over the last 18 months. No matter what the sector, and no matter how big or small the company, every business has been affected by COVID-19 in some way.

With two decisions (No. 1895/2018 and No. 1896/2018), both filed on 25 January 2018, the Court of Cassation reached opposite conclusions in the two different situations

The case

The Constitutional Court (6 December 2017) confirmed that Art. 147, para. 5, of the Italian Bankruptcy Law does not violate the Constitution as long as it is interpreted in a broad sense

The case

With the decision No. 1195 of 18 January 2018, the Court of Cassation ruled on the powers of the extraordinary commissioner to require performance of pending contracts and on the treatment of the relevant claims of the suppliers

The case

The Court of Cassation with a decision of 25 September 2017, No. 22274 confirms that Art. 74 of the Italian Bankruptcy Law provides a special rule, which does not apply to cases to which it is not explicitly extended

The case