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

This week’s TGIF considers a recent Federal Court of Australia decision (Connelly (liquidator) v Papadopoulos, in the matter of TSK QLD Pty Ltd (in liq) [2024] FCA 888). In the case, it was determined that a restructuring adviser who engineered an asset-stripping scheme may be found liable for the full value of the loss arising out of the scheme.

Key Takeaways

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.

This week’s TGIF summarises the Federal Court of Australia’s recent decision granting leave to proceed against a company despite the appointment of a small business restructuring (SBR) practitioner under Pt 5.3B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).

Key takeaways

WE CONSIDER BELOW THE SHARE CHARGE ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS FOR PRIVATE CREDIT LENDERS, WHO MAY NOW COME TO PREFER 'APPROPRIATION' AS THE LESS FORMAL, MORE IMMEDIATE 'LOAN-TO-OWN' TOOL TO SOLVE FOR BORROWER JV DISPUTES, BREAK SHAREHOLDER DEADLOCKS, AND AS A PROACTIVE MEANS TO PRESERVE VALUE IN A CREDIT.

KARL CLOWRY, SEÁN MCGUINNESS, AND AZIZ ABDUL LOOK TO THE LESSONS FOR SHAREHOLDERS, CREDITORS AND ADMINISTRATORS FROM THE FIRST CREDITOR LED RESTRUCTURING PLAN.

The Good Box Co Labs Limited (in Administration) case demonstrates once more the viability of the process for the mid-market and continues a trend of RPs being used by a determined creditor / shareholder constituency to rescue an equity investment within an existing corporate group. In short, the mid-market RP is still a highly situational, albeit flexible, tool."

Houst Limited's (the Company) restructuring plan (under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006) (RP) was recently sanctioned at the High Court on 22 July 2022.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

We consider the implications for office-holder claimants of the recent case ofKelmanson v Gallagher & De Weyer [2022] EWHC 395 (Ch).

The case raises interesting points of practice for insolvency practitioners: a director consciously trying to evade or 'game' the statute won't work to prevent office holder recovery, but a sincerely held but mistaken belief on the director's part as to what was being done doing could.

KEY POINTS:

In our previous commentary, we concluded that the ‘The Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc. to Connected Persons) Regulations 2021’ (Regulations) had enacted a tick-box exercise for experienced market participants.

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