Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

The Austrian Supreme Court recently considered whether the knowledge of a debtor may be attributed to a third party in an avoidance action.

Background

Austria implemented Directive (EU) 2019/1023 on preventive restructuring frameworks with the Restructuring Regulation, which came into force on July 17, 2021, and introduced (further) judicial proceedings for preventive restructuring. Practice, however, has shown that the reorganization plan in insolvency proceedings and out-of-court restructuring remain the methods of choice in Austria.

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 insolvency of the SIGNA Group is the largest ever insolvency in Austria with debts reportedly exceeding EUR14 billion.

Recently, the three largest holding companies of the group started debtor in possession restructuring proceedings which allowed management to continue the day-to-day running of the businesses during insolvency proceedings. Due to an error in the timing of the proceedings, the non-operationally active top holding company (SIGNA Holding) was forced to end self-administration.

The timing problem

In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.

The statutory demand process

If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.

A recent court decision considers the legal principles and sufficiency of evidence when a court-appointed receiver seeks approval of their remuneration.

A court-appointed receiver needs court approval for the payment of their remuneration. The receiver has the onus of establishing the reasonableness of the work performed and of the remuneration sought.

Austria implemented the directive on preventive restructuring frameworks more than two years ago, in July 2021. In a first ruling on the proceedings, the Vienna Higher Regional Court has reaffirmed the prerequisites for entering preventive restructuring and clarified the checks to be carried out by the courts at the opening of the proceedings.

Decision

The Court held that:

Background

The impact of the opening of insolvency proceedings on options granted in combined contracts (for example, a lease contract containing a call option for the leased real estate) had been in dispute for a long time.

Decision

The Austrian Supreme Court held that call options granted in lease contracts where the option fee has been paid do not expire with the opening of insolvency proceedings, nor are they subject to the right of the insolvency administrator to terminate the lease contract.

Background

Under the deposit guarantee scheme, deposits with Austrian banks are generally protected on a bank's insolvency, up to EUR 100,000. This sum may be higher in certain cases, for example, for sums deposited from the sale of a private residential property within 12 months before the insolvency, the guaranteed amount is EUR 500,000.