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.
What Happened
As 2024 gets underway, 2023 will be remembered as the year that King Charles III’s coronation captured our attention with its many (and occasionally bizarre) storied traditions and customs and, of course, for the passing of the Irish singer and poet Shane MacGowan.1 Turmoil in the European banking sector early in the year set the tone for a challenging year, while across the Atlantic, a number of regional US banks had their
Darty Holdings SAS v Carton-Kelly(as additional liquidator of CGL Realisations Limited) [2023] EWCA Civ 1135
Overview
What Happened
Summary
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
A real, as opposed to remote, risk of insolvency is not necessarily enough for the duties of a board of directors to switch from being owed to its shareholders to being owed to its creditors.