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.

Following our article on statutory demands (“SD”), if a company has received a SD and has failed to raise a legitimate dispute or make payment, then the creditor can proceed with a winding up petition. Winding up petitions play a crucial role in the legal landscape, particularly in the context of debt recovery and business insolvency.

A statutory demand (“SD”) is a formal written request for payment of a debt, typically issued by a creditor to a debtor. This legal document serves as a precursor to more severe actions, such as winding up proceedings or bankruptcy. Understanding the key aspects of a SD is crucial for both creditors seeking repayment and debtors facing potential legal consequences.

1. Purpose and legal basis

With the cost-of-living crisis and a possible recession facing the UK economy, it is not surprising that government statistics show insolvencies are rising significantly, with a substantial increase on pre-pandemic levels, and up to 80% higher than the previous 12-month period.

An emerging trend within insolvencies is the recovery of crypto assets, whether the businesses are within the crypto sector, or whether it is any other entity holding value in cryptocurrencies.

There has never been a more disruptive time for business. Brexit and the resultant uncertainty arising from the pandemic have dramatically impacted the business landscape over the last 18 months. No matter what the sector, and no matter how big or small the company, every business has been affected by COVID-19 in some way.

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.