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

The Hungarian Supreme Court has ruled that in a lawsuit initiated by an insolvent debtor, a creditor’s claim arising after the commencement date of the liquidation cannot be enforced as a set-off claim against the debtor.

Background

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.

Restructuring proceedings in Hungary provide a more flexible solution than bankruptcy and liquidation proceedings and potentially an effective alternative for companies in financial difficulties.

Key benefits

Commencement pre-insolvency

Objective

The new preventive restructuring procedure aims to deal with companies in financial difficulty before serious problems arise. The measures focus on preventing the insolvency of businesses to preserve their viability.

Main characteristics

In Shameeka Ien v. TransCare Corp., et al. (In re TransCareCorp.), Case No. 16-10407, Adv. P. No. 16-01033 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020) [D.I. 157], the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently refused to dismiss WARN Act claims against Patriarch Partners, LLC, private equity firm (“PE Firm“), and its owner, Lynn Tilton (“PE Owner“), resulting from the staggered chapter 7 bankruptcies of several portfolio companies, TransCare Corporation and its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors“).

Joining three other bankruptcy courts, Judge Thuma of the District of New Mexico recently held that the rules issued by the Small Business Administration (“SBA“) that restrict bankrupt entities from participating in the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP“) violated the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, H.R. 748, P.L. 115-136 (the “CARES Act”), as well as section 525(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Southern District of New York recently reminded us in In re Firestar Diamond, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-10509 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. April 22, 2019) (SHL) [Dkt. No. 1482] that equitable principles in bankruptcy often do not match those outside of bankruptcy. Indeed, bankruptcy decisions often place emphasis on equality of treatment amongst all creditors and are less concerned with inequities to individual creditors.

Introduction

Although no insolvency law-specific regulatory changes have been introduced in Hungary due to COVID-19, the Hungarian Government has adopted numerous extraordinary measures that may have a profound effect on how companies deal with solvency and liquidity related problems under the new circumstances.

Firstly, although the bankruptcy procedure is to be initiated by the management of the company, the prior approval of the main body of the company (ie the shareholders) is required. Due to the curfew currently in effect, in-person shareholders’ meetings are mostly prohibited.