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

One of the main advantages for a debtor to seek protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) or the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) is the stay of proceedings that prevents creditors faced with a default in payment from taking any action against the debtor. This allows the debtor, among other things, to reorganize itself or dispose of some or all of its assets under the court’s supervision. Be that as it may, there are exceptions.

L’un des principaux avantages pour un débiteur de se placer sous la protection de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies (« LACC ») ou de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité (« LFI ») consiste en la suspension des procédures pouvant être intentées par un créancier faisant face à un défaut de paiement. Cette suspension des procédures permet notamment à la débitrice de se réorganiser ou de disposer de certains ou de l’ensemble de ses actifs sous la supervision du tribunal. Or, certaines exceptions existent.

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.

In brief

The courts were busy in the second half of 2021 with developments in the space where insolvency law and environmental law overlap.

In Victoria, the Court of Appeal has affirmed the potential for a liquidator to be personally liable, and for there to be a prospective ground to block the disclaimer of contaminated land, where the liquidator has the benefit of a third-party indemnity for environmental exposures.¹

In brief

Australia's borders may be closed, but from the start of the pandemic, Australian courts have continued to grapple with insolvency issues from beyond our shores. Recent cases have expanded the recognition of international insolvency processes in Australia, whilst also highlighting that Australia's own insolvency regimes have application internationally.

Key takeaways

In brief

With the courts about to consider a significant and long standing controversy in the law of unfair preferences, suppliers to financially distressed companies, and liquidators, should be aware that there have been recent significant shifts in the law about getting paid in hard times.

Le 1^er avril 2021, la Cour suprême du Canada a rejeté la demande d’autorisation d’appel de la décision de la Cour d’appel du Québec dans l’affaire Séquestre de Media5 Corporation, 2020 QCCA 943. Par conséquent, les tribunaux du Québec ont maintenant confirmation de la marche à suivre pour la nomination de séquestres nationaux à la demande des créanciers garantis.

Le 20 juillet 2020, la Cour d’appel du Québec annulait la décision rendue par la Cour supérieure et confirmait les principes suivants :

On April 1^st, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the application for leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal of Québec in Séquestre de Media5 Corporation, 2020 QCCA 943. As a result, Quebec courts now have clarity regarding their ability to appoint national receivers for secured creditors.

On July 20, 2020, the Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s decision and confirmed the following principles:

In brief