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

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 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

The COVID-19 pandemic is also keeping legislators on their toes, who are continuing to try to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on the economy. The focus was initially on the temporary suspension of the obligation to file for insolvency by the COVID-19 Insolvency Suspension Act (COVInsAG). Following on from this, with the Act on the Further Development of Restructuring and Insolvency Law (SanInsFoG), which came into force on 1 January 2021, the legislator has further modified obligations of conduct and, correspondingly, the liability of managing directors in the crisis of the company.

This week’s TGIF considers an application to the Federal Court for the private hearing of a public examination where separate criminal proceedings were also on foot.

Key takeaways

This week’s TGIF looks at a recent decision of the Victorian Supreme Court, where a winding up application was adjourned to allow the debtor company to pursue restructuring under the recently introduced small business restructuring reforms.

Key takeaways

Mit rechtskräftig gewordenem Urteil vom 06.03.2019 (Az. 5 O 234/17) hat das Landgericht Wiesbaden entschieden, dass es dem Insolvenzverwalter und allen versicherten Personen verwehrt ist, Versicherungsschutz für Inanspruchnahmen zu verlangen, die einer Versicherungsperiode zuzuordnen sind, für die der Insolvenzverwalter die Nichterfüllung des D&O-Versicherungsvertrags gewählt hat.

In a final ruling dated 6 March 2019 (Case ref.: 5 O 234/17), the Regional Court of Wiesbaden decided that the insolvency administrator and all insured persons are not entitled to claim insurance coverage for claims attributable to an insurance period for which the insolvency administrator has chosen not to fulfi l the D&O insurance contract.

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?