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.

There are many enforcement options available to commercial landlords in England & Wales, to recover rent arrears due under a lease from a business tenant. Some of those options are based in contract and governed by the terms of the individual lease itself, such as a power to forfeit or damages for breach, whilst some of those options are based in statute such as the Commercial Rent Arrears Recovery regime.

When an individual or company purchases property in England or Wales, the legal title will transfer once the purchaser is listed as the registered proprietor at the Land Registry. However, what happens when, pending the registration of the legal interest, the seller company (who is still the registered proprietor) is dissolved? This is a risk seldom contemplated when purchasing property, but can have important consequences for the title of the property.

This question had until recent times been a conundrum of modern fixed charge receiverships (as well as receivers appointed under the Law of Property Act 1925), because in the scenario of the receiver seeking to step in and deal with property, the receiver is also said to be the borrower's deemed agent. It therefore begged a thorny question of the receiver, about how to reconcile being on both sides of the possession action.

There are significant differences in the procedures available to lenders north and south of the border when it comes to enforcing fixed charges or standard securities over real/heritable property. In this blog, we will compare the process in England & Wales ("E&W") of appointing a fixed charge or "LPA" receiver with the Scottish calling-up procedure

England & Wales: LPA receivers

Challenging a Tenant CVA

Company Voluntary Agreements ("CVAs") have been the go-to option for struggling retail businesses over the pandemic period. While all creditors are generally treated equally under a CVA, landlords are increasingly finding themselves at the short end where they are the only, or one of, a very small pool of, creditors taking a hit. It is now more important than ever that a landlord knows the circumstances by which they can challenge a tenant's CVA.

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.