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 UK government has updated the 30-year-old special administration regime for water companies making it possible to rescue water companies.
The new legislation (plus two draft instruments) aims to modernise water company insolvency legislation in the face of the growing challenges in the industry including higher operating costs, claims over sewage pollution and significant debt burden (Thames Water owes £18.3 billion).
New special administration regime
The English High Court has re-affirmed its jurisdiction where a disputed petition debt arises from a contract with an exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC) in favour of a foreign court.
Background
The October 2023 insolvency statistics show that company insolvencies have risen by 17.6% from October 2022 to October 2023 and by 56.7% since pre-pandemic levels in October 2019. Total insolvencies have reached the highest levels since 2009.
The English court has (for the first time) given guidance on the long-established practice of substituting a creditor as petitioner in a winding up petition and hearing argument about the creditor’s standing later.
Background
In March 2021, Citibank petitioned to wind up Liberty Commodities (LCL). The petition was supported by two creditors, White Oak and NPS. Citibank settled with LCL and applied to dismiss the petition. The supporters applied to be substituted.
The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of the decision in BTI –v- Sequana.
At a time when many companies are facing financial difficulties and directors are considering their legal duties, this long-awaited judgment has confirmed that directors have a 'creditor interest duty' when a company is insolvent or bordering on insolvency or an insolvent liquidation or administration is probable.
Background
The court sanctioned one of two potential schemes of arrangement for Amigo Loans Ltd (Amigo) and approved a plan that provided for two possible outcomes.
Background
Amigo provided guarantor loans to customers with poor credit scores. Amigo owed customers and the Financial Ombudsman Service £375 million for customer complaints and was insolvent.
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 Cage Consultants Limited v Iqbal & Iqbal [2020] EWHC 2917 (Ch), the liquidators of Totalbrand Limited (the company) assigned certain claims – including for transactions at an undervalue and preferences – to litigation funders Cage Consultants Limited (CCL) under s.246ZD Insolvency Act 1986. The company was subsequently dissolved.
A former director of the company and another individual alleged to have benefitted from the transactions tried to strike out the claims. They did this on the basis that: