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 examines a recent decision where the Federal Court considered when a proof of debt would be ‘admitted’ within the meaning of section 563B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and therefore attract the statutory entitlement to interest.

Key takeaways

In Morgan v McMillan Investment Holdings Pty Ltd [2024] HCA 33, the High Court had to consider whether a right to sue held by companies in liquidation could provide the required gateway for a pooling order under s 579E(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Key Takeaways

In this week’s TGIF, we examine the High Court’s recent decision in Greylag Goose Leasing 1410 Designated Activity Company & Anor v P T Garuda Indonesia Ltd [2024] HCA 21. In the decision, a majority of the High Court upheld the New South Wales Court of Appeal decision that foreign state immunity extends to a state-owned national airline subject to winding-up proceedings.

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 Re Tucker, Quintis Leasing Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1673, the administrators of a company successfully obtained orders from the Federal Court modifying the operation of section 443B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.

The statutory demand process

If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.

A recent court decision considers the legal principles and sufficiency of evidence when a court-appointed receiver seeks approval of their remuneration.

A court-appointed receiver needs court approval for the payment of their remuneration. The receiver has the onus of establishing the reasonableness of the work performed and of the remuneration sought.

In the matter of Premier Energy Resources Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 1185, the Administrator unsuccessfully sought an order validating his appointment where he failed to investigate allegations that his appointment documents included a director’s forged letter of resignation.

Key takeaways

In this week’s TGIF, we consider Morgan & Ors v McMillan Investment Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor [2023] HCATrans 122, a decision to grant special leave, paving the way for the High Court to clarify the law with respect to pooling orders.

Key takeaways