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 Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc. to Connected Persons) Regulations 2021, which came into force on 30 April 2021, introduced several changes to pre-pack sales to connected parties in order to restore public confidence in this type of restructuring deal.
We are still in the early days of the economic shock of the coronavirus, with positive trends not yet clear. Restructuring specialists at Keystone Law have combined our experiences of enquiries from businesses, Insolvency Practitioners (IPs) and other stakeholders during lockdown and noted the following developments which will help businesses and advisors prepare for a post-lockdown business environment:
Businesses will be considering dramatic changes over the next few days and weeks. The Government last week closed certain business such as pubs, theatres, restaurants and cinemas. Last night, the Government went further and ordered that all non-essential retail businesses and hotels should close and that people should not leave their homes to work unless it absolutely cannot be done from home.
With coronavirus causing unprecedented distress to the whole global economy, all types of business in every sector will be affected. These are not normal times, and it is clear that all businesses will need to formulate coherent action plans to survive. The Government appears to be working on emergency plans to provide help to trade and industry that has already been badly affected by underlying economic uncertainties. More high-street names have closed their doors this week.
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
This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.
What happened?
On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.
This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.
Background
Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.