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

The High Court in England recently issued a stark warning to directors who fail to consider their duties to the company and its creditors when entering financial difficulties.

Background

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.

With the UK Government protections to prevent a flood of corporate insolvencies all now tailing off, will 2022 see the much talked about "tsunami" of insolvencies? Market views on that are mixed but it does seem certain that there will be at least a significant upturn in insolvencies compared to 2020 and 2021. With that in mind, it's worth considering the major differences between Scotland and England when it comes to corporate insolvencies.

1. There is no Official Receiver in Scotland

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

At the end of September, Government protections that were designed to prevent a flood of insolvencies are set to be lifted. Specifically, the suspension of the provisions around wrongful trading will be over and creditors can once again seek to put companies who owe them money into liquidation. 

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.

In brief

In brief

Creditors commonly find that their applications to wind up a company are suddenly deferred at the last minute by the appointment of a voluntary administrator.  Now, in the early days of the small business restructuring (Part 5.3B) process, the courts are already grappling with those circumstances in the context of that new regime. At the time of writing1, only four restructuring appointments under Part 5.3B have been notified to ASIC. Two of them have been the subject of court proceedings.

The resulting decisions reveal: