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 Russian government has introduced a bankruptcy moratorium with effect from 1 April to 1 October 2022 in respect of all Russian legal entities and individuals (“Persons“) except for certain residential real estate developers.
The moratorium is intended to protect Russian debtors against creditors’ claims and provide support for players on the Russian market given the challenging environment they operate in.
The key consequences of the introduction of the moratorium regime are as follows:
1. Introduction
As in other jurisdictions, Russia’s insolvency legislation is based on the pari passu principle. However, this principle is subject to certain exceptions, specifically with respect to shareholders and other non-arm’s length creditors, such as the controlling persons of an insolvent company (“Affiliated Creditors”).
In practice, Affiliated Creditors use other instruments (e.g. loans, intergroup supplies etc.) to have their claims listed in the creditors’ register of an insolvent company.
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
Russia's Supreme Court guidelines reduce high net worth individuals' ("HNWIs") asset protection opportunities and potentially create risks of additional creditor claims against HNWIs after divorce and asset division between the HNWI and his/her spouse.1
In addition, these guidelines enable third parties, notably creditors of the ex-spouse, to get access to information regarding the HNWI's disputed assets. We summarize the most important points of these guidelines below.
Key developments
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.
The recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Western Australia, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2018] WASCA 163 provides much needed clarity around the law of set-off. The decision will no doubt help creditors sleep well at night, knowing that when contracting with counterparties that later become insolvent they will not lose their set-off rights for a lack of mutuality where the counterparty has granted security over its assets.