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 High Court has reaffirmed the test to be applied in considering an application to dismiss a bankruptcy summons grounded on a judgment.

The bankruptcy process in Ireland involves multiple steps and the debtor can seek to bring it to a halt at each step. Debtors often seek to rerun effectively the same arguments at each step, ignoring previous findings by the courts. One such step is an application to dismiss a bankruptcy summons.

The Irish High Court has determined that the liquidation of an Irish aircraft leasing company, which was a 100% subsidiary of a Russian company expressly subject to EU sanctions, rebuts the presumption that the company was controlled by the Russian parent for the purpose of EU sanctions.

This enables the liquidators to deal with the assets without costly and time-consuming derogation applications.

Background

In Re Brew Still Pty Ltd (admin apptd)[2023] NSWSC 256, Black J of the New South Wales Supreme Court declined an application for an adjournment of one month brought by the voluntary administrator appointed to Brew Still Pty Ltd three days prior to the hearing of the winding up application.

Irish company law provides that if a charge granted by a company is not registered in the Companies Registration Office (CRO) within 21 days of its creation, it is void against a liquidator and any creditor of the company. There is a duty imposed on a company which grants a charge to register the charge in the CRO but the creditor taking the charge can also do so.

Diamond Rock Developments Ltd (the Company) granted a mortgage over a property. That mortgage was registered in the Land Registry but was not registered in the CRO.

If you supply goods, the simplest step that you can take to reduce your exposure to a customer’s insolvency is to use effective retention of title (RoT).

However not all RoT clauses are effective and we see many RoT claims rejected in insolvency.

By default, once you sell goods on credit:

• the goods belong to the customer; and
• the customer owes you the purchase price.

This means that if an insolvency practitioner (IP) is appointed to the customer:

The decisions in Metal Manufactures Pty Limited v Morton [2023] HCA 1 and Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 2 have been viewed as conflicting for liquidators. In this week’s TGIF, we examine these proceedings and why the decisions benefit both liquidators and creditors.

Key takeaways

In Lawrence, Ozifin Tech Pty Ltd (in liq) v AGM Markets Pty Ltd (in liq)[2022] FCA 1478, liquidators of multiple companies were successful in obtaining the declarations and directions they sought regarding the distribution of statutory trust funds, and obtaining payment of their fees from trust assets.

In the recent decision of Banerjee (Liquidator), in the matter of Eastside Formwork Pty Ltd (in liq) v Stojic [2022] FCA 1315, a liquidator succeeded in obtaining orders for a warrant to search for and seize books and records which had been concealed from the liquidator. The warrant was directed at the person deemed the ‘guiding mind and will’ of the company in liquidation, who had repeatedly ‘fobbed off’ requests for the production of all records of the company.

Key takeaways