Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS” or the “Court”) released its widely-anticipated decision in Harrington, United States Trustee, Region 2 v. Purdue Pharma L.P.
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 Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) has released its decision in Canada North, conclusively resolving the priority dispute between deemed trusts created under the federal “fiscal statutes” (being the Income Tax Act (the “ITA”), the
The recent decision of Justice B.E.
Extensive amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) and Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) coming into force on November 1, 2019 through Bill C-97 will have a significant effect on certain aspects of insolvency proceedings commenced after that date. The wide-ranging revisions to both the BIA and CCAA will likely foster changes to the currently existing insolvency and restructuring practice in Canada.
Bill C-97 Overview
Bill C-97 amends both the BIA and CCAA to:
Des modifications importantes à la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité ("LFI") et à la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies ("LACC") entreront en vigueur le 1er novembre 2019 avec l’adoption du projet de loi C-97. Elles auront une incidence importante sur certains aspects des procédures d’insolvabilité entreprises après cette date.
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.