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.
The FCA has published finalised guidance for insolvency practitioners (IPs) appointed (or looking to be appointed) over regulated firms.
This sets out the FCA’s expectations as to how IPs can ensure firms continue to meet their regulatory obligations both before an appointment and during the course of an insolvency process. It confirms the FCA’s view of what would constitute good practice, as well as linking in to some of the existing statutory obligations on regulated firms and/or IPs.
After a period of significant inactivity as a result of the various temporary measures introduced during the pandemic, we are now approaching an insolvency cliff edge in the UK. In this video, senior restructuring and insolvency lawyers from TLT’s Scottish, Northern Irish and English offices discuss:
Additional conditions will be imposed on administrators seeking to dispose of a company’s business or assets to a party connected to the insolvent company within 8 weeks of their appointment, for administrations beginning on or after 30 April 2021.
Summary
Affected sales will be subject to either (1) prior creditor approval or (2) prior review by an independent evaluator.
Regulations laid before Parliament yesterday seek to extend the current restrictions on the presentation of winding up petitions to 31 December 2020. However, there will inevitably come a time when these temporary restrictions are lifted.
We recently acted for the successful respondent in an appeal against a winding up petition. Arnold Ayoo of 23 Essex Street was instructed.
The draft Finance Bill 2019-20 was published on 11 July 2019. It includes, amongst other provisions, changes to reinstate HMRC's status as a preferential creditor in relation to certain debts in corporate insolvencies. This will have an impact for all shareholders and creditors in corporate insolvencies where HMRC is also a creditor.
What is changing?
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?
This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.
BACKGROUND
The Government will consult on new laws to give consumers greater protection on retailer insolvency, but has confirmed that consumer prepayments will not be given preferential status in insolvency.
This was announced on 27 December 2018 in the Government's Response to the Law Commission's July 2016 Report on Consumer Prepayments on Retailer Insolvency.
The Law Commission's Report
The Law Commission's Report recommended that: