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 1^er 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.

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)

(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.

Judge: Preston

Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever