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

On 27 February 2024, the High Court sanctioned a restructuring plan (the Plan) proposed by CB&I UK Limited (CB&I), part of the global McDermott construction and engineering group (the Group). This is the first English restructuring plan to be approved after the Court of Appeal judgment in Adler (see our Alert) and follows the guidance in that case.

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.

On 23 January 2024, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court's sanction of Adler Group's (Adler) restructuring plan (the Plan) (see our alert). This much anticipated judgment provides clarity on the court's discretion to sanction a plan where there are dissenting classes of creditors.

Background

The Plan envisaged:

Comme déjà évoqué dans notre article précédent à ce sujet, le concept du transfert d’entreprise constitue l’un des piliers de la réforme du droit de l’insolvabilité en Belgique.

Dans cet article, nous introduisions le concept du transfert d’entreprise sous autorité judiciaire, revu depuis la réforme du 1er septembre 2023.

La présente contribution constitue la deuxième partie du sujet, portant cette fois sur le transfert d’une entreprise qui intervient dans le cadre d’une préparation privée (confidentielle) à la faillite.

Zoals reeds vermeld in ons vorig artikel in deze materie, is het concept van de overdracht van een onderneming één van de pijlers van de hervorming van het insolventierecht in België.

U maakte reeds kennis met het concept van de overdracht van ondernemingen onder gerechtelijk gezag, dat herzien is sinds de hervorming van 1 september 2023.

Deze bijdrage vormt het tweede deel van dit onderwerp, ditmaal over de overdracht van een onderneming in het kader van een "besloten voorbereiding van een faillissement".

As already mentioned in our previous article on this subject, the concept of the transfer of a business is one of the pillars of the reform of insolvency law in Belgium.

In our previous article regarding this subject, we introduced the concept of the transfer of a business under judicial authority, reviewed since the reform as of 1 September 2023.

This contribution constitutes the second part of the subject, and deals with the transfer of a business in the context of a private (confidential) preparation prior to bankruptcy.

Our precedent contribution contained introductory remarks on the reform of insolvency law, which came into force on 1 September 2023. As indicated, this contribution focuses on a key element of this reform.

The revision of the insolvency landscape has not spared the concept of the transfer of business, which is one of its pillars.

The transfer of a business can take place at two stages: as part of a public judicial reorganisation proceeding, but also as part of a silent preparation prior to bankruptcy.

Notre contribution précédente comprenait les propos introductifs portant sur la réforme du droit de l’insolvabilité, entrée en vigueur ce 1er septembre 2023. Comme indiqué, la présente contribution porte sur un élément clé de cette réforme.

La révision du paysage de l’insolvabilité n’a pas épargné le concept du transfert d’entreprise, qui en constitue l’un des piliers.

Le transfert de l'entreprise peut intervenir à deux stades : dans le cadre d’une procédure de réorganisation judiciaire publique, mais également dans le cadre d’une préparation silencieuse à la faillite.

The Court of Appeal has recently referred to established case law that the court will only interfere with the act of an officeholder “if he has done something so utterly unreasonable and absurd that no reasonable man would have done it”.

While the judge in the lower court had not made any error of law, on the facts there were identifiable flaws in the judge's reasoning that the trustees' decision not to join in the proceedings was perverse.

The judge had failed to recognise that: