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 national lockdown in South Africa has left many companies financially distressed and unable to meet their contractual obligations. Looming on the landlord’s horizon may well be its approach to tenants who are placed under business rescue.

It is imperative that companies in financial distress prioritise their continued existence and consider business rescue as an alternative to liquidation. One of the major advantages of the business rescue process is the moratorium (stay) on legal proceedings which aims to give financially distressed companies sufficient breathing space to trade out of its insolvency. A temporary moratorium automatically comes into operation upon the filing of a resolution placing the company into business rescue or the issuing of an application for an order to this effect.

It is imperative that companies in financial distress prioritise their continued existence and consider business rescue as an alternative to liquidation. Business rescue is a robust procedure that allows South African companies in financial distress or trading in insolvent circumstances to file for business rescue and with the assistance of a business rescue practitioner, reorganise and restructure the business with the aim of returning it to a more stable and profitable entity.

The Covid-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on the South African economy with several enterprises struggling to remain profitable. Their continued operation remains threatened by the imposition of trade restrictions pursuant to the national lockdown and South Africa’s subsequent economic downgrade to junk status.

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