Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

The right to effectively avoid the illegitimate removal of assets from a company in financial difficulties is a key element of any insolvency law that protects the rights of creditors and maximises the recovery of value from the insolvent company.

Czech insolvency law, and in particular the insolvency avoidance rights, play a significant role as a recovery tool for creditors in insolvency proceedings, but in practice mainly act as a preventive warning signal for a debtor and its creditors when trading, even before financial problems arise.

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.

After more than two years of delay, preventive restructuring has finally become available to companies in financial difficulties in the Czech Republic. Czech companies can now seek to restructure their troubled businesses outside formal insolvency proceedings with the help of new rules specifically designed to keep their viable business operating and to prevent insolvency.

A pre-pack insolvency sale, which is an expedited liquidation proceeding that allow for the sale of all or part of a debtor’s business as a going concern to the best bidder shortly after the insolvency proceedings are opened, is not formally regulated in the Czech Republic.

In response to the anticipated economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, on 31 March 2020 the Czech Government approved the so-called ‘Lex COVID-19’ and sent the draft law to the Parliament for expedited legislative processing. This article focuses on the implications of the Lex COVID-19 on the insolvency proceedings in the Czech Republic. For wider implications of the Lex COVID-19, please see this article.

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.