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 Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) Scotland Act was passed by the Scottish Government on 28 June 2022 and enacted on 10 August 2022 (the "Act"). It makes two key changes to insolvency and diligence in Scotland.

Bankruptcy floor limit

If you have fraudulently obtained Covid-19 financial support, such as a Bounce Back Loan, you must be pretty worried by recent headlines that show company directors being disqualified, fined and jailed.

It would appear that the trend we reported in the rising numbers of Scottish corporate insolvencies is showing no let up.

The recent English High Court decision of Re Glam and Tan Ltd [2022] EWHC 855 (Ch) highlights the ways in which a director can be found liable, as well as the reasons why they may be relieved of responsibility for breaches of section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which penalises delinquent directors and officers.

The legislation

Following the Coronavirus pandemic, the Scottish Government introduced two key Acts. The Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020 and the Coronavirus (Scotland) (No.2) Act 2020 - together, these Acts made two significant changes to personal insolvency in Scotland.

The 2020 Coronavirus (Scotland) Acts

The Bankruptcy Code confers upon debtors or trustees, as the case may be, the power to avoid certain preferential or fraudulent transfers made to creditors within prescribed guidelines and limitations. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico recently addressed the contours of these powers through a recent decision inU.S. Glove v. Jacobs, Adv. No. 21-1009, (Bankr. D.N.M.

In In re Smith, (B.A.P. 10th Cir., Aug. 18, 2020), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently joined the majority of circuit courts of appeals in finding that a creditor seeking a judgment of nondischargeability must demonstrate that the injury caused by the prepetition debtor was both willful and malicious under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Factual Background

In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that claim disallowance issues under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code "travel with" the claim, and not with the claimant. Declining to follow a published district court decision from the same federal district, the bankruptcy court found that section 502(d) applies to disallow a transferred claim regardless of whether the transferee acquired its claim through an assignment or an outright sale. See In re Firestar Diamond, 615 B.R. 161 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020).