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
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.
This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.
What happened?
This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.
BACKGROUND
This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.
What happened?
On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.
This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.
Background
Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.