Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
Although there are occasions when formal insolvency proceedings are unavoidable, there are many cases where a consensual, out-of-court approach is more appropriate and desirable.
We are often engaged to assist creditors, directors and other stakeholders with negotiating standstill agreements or restructuring support agreements to give breathing space to put new terms in place and allow the relevant corporate entity (or group) to continue as a going concern.
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.
On 11 November 2022, Mr Justice Kawaley ordered the first appointment of restructuring officers inRe Oriente Group Limited (FSD 231 of 2022) under the new Cayman Islands restructuring regime, with reserved written reasons to follow. On 15 November 2022, we provided a brief update on some of the key takeaways from the hearing, which can be found here.
On 11 November 2022, Mr Justice Kawaley ordered the first appointment of restructuring officers inRe Oriente Group Limited (FSD 231 of 2022) under the new Cayman Islands restructuring regime, with reserved written reasons to follow. We provide a brief update on some of the key takeaways from the hearing below.
A fundamental principle of insolvency law in the Cayman Islands is that upon the commencement of a liquidation of a company, a line is drawn in the sand and the assets of an insolvent company should be distributed on a pari passu basis (e.g. each unsecured creditor should share equally in the available assets of the company). While subject to some exceptions (like any good fundamental principle of law), the concept that all unsecured creditors should be on “equal footing” is the basis for a wide array of insolvency legislation and case law.
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.