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.

• Commercial rent arrears continue to accumulate as a result of the pandemic, such that arrears are estimated to reach £9 billion by March 2022 and comprise a much larger slice of the typical debt stack than they did pre-pandemic.
• The UK government has proposed a binding arbitration scheme to help resolve the arrears and further extend the existing protections from enforcement and insolvency procedures that

• Brexit ripped up the rules on automatic cross-border recognition of formal insolvency proceedings and restructuring tools between the UK and the EU.
• Recognition will now depend on a patchwork of domestic legislation, private international law and treaties and may lead to different outcomes depending on the jurisdiction.
• Cross-border recognition is still achievable but involves careful navigation and a more tailored approach in individual cases to selection of the most effective process and its route to recognition.

Legal landscape

The consequent distress in the market is evident with 9 supplier insolvencies in the last few weeks alone, including Avro Energy, Utility Point and People’s Energy.

Today, 1 October 2021, is important as Ofgem is due to increase tariff caps from that date. This is also the date when the restrictions on petitioning for the winding up of companies on the basis of insolvency will be eased.

Legal landscape – energy regulations

In distressed situations, there are a number of issues to navigate, including:

There have been two recent changes to the insolvency laws in England and Wales relating to winding up petitions1 and Part 1A moratoriums.

Winding up petitions – Relaxation of restrictions

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.