Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
Actions brought against the BHS directors by the group’s liquidators have resulted in the largest reported award for wrongful trading since the provision’s introduction, but the judgment highlights some unsettled areas of the law relating to directors’ duties.
The Legal Statement applies areas of insolvency law to digital assets, providing valuable guidance on the approach English courts will take.
The Legal Statement applies areas of insolvency law to digital assets, providing valuable guidance on the approach English courts will take.
The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Sequana1leaves many unanswered questions, and finding a common thread between the four quite separate judgments has proved challenging for practitioners and directors alike. The recent decision in Hunt v.
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.
In Lawrence, Ozifin Tech Pty Ltd (in liq) v AGM Markets Pty Ltd (in liq)[2022] FCA 1478, liquidators of multiple companies were successful in obtaining the declarations and directions they sought regarding the distribution of statutory trust funds, and obtaining payment of their fees from trust assets.
In a new ruling, the UK Supreme Court concluded that the rule applies only when a company is "insolvent or bordering on insolvency".
On 5 October 2022, the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA and others (Sequana)1. The case required the court to reconcile differing judicial pronouncements of the "creditors' interest rule" (the Rule) and consider the following questions:
This week’s TGIF considers a recent case where the Supreme Court of Queensland rejected a director’s application to access an executory contract of sale entered into by receivers and managers on the basis it was not a ‘financial record’
Key Takeaways
This week’s TGIF looks at the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Donoghue v Russells (A Firm)[2021] FCA 798 in which Mr Donoghue appealed a decision to make a sequestration order which was premised on him ‘carrying on business in Australia' for the purpose of section 43(1)(b)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Act).
Key Takeaways