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.
Cryptoassets are traded on a global basis. Indeed, the markets are even more global and constant than markets in more conventional financial instruments, rivalled only perhaps by the FX markets in their reach.
The Supreme Court, in a key judgment handed down on 5 October 2022 (BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others [2022] UKSC 25), has provided some important clarification around the scope of directors’ duties in the context of companies that are nearing insolvency.
Factual background
On 26 March 2021 insolvency measures supporting businesses during the pandemic and aiding their recovery were extended.
Once again, the Government has legislated to extend existing insolvency temporary measures through the CIGA (Coronavirus) (Early Termination of Certain Temporary Provisions) Regulations 2020 and the CIGA (Coronavirus) (Suspension of Liability for Wrongful Trading and Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2020. Additionally, the restrictions on forfeiture by landlords have been extended.
This is the second of two articles considering the corporate insolvency aspects of the Corporate Insolvency & Governance Act 2020 (the Act). In the first article, we looked at the temporary measures introduced by the Act in response to the Covid-19 crisis and this second article explains the permanent reforms of insolvency law provided for in the Act. These changes came into effect on 26 June 2020.
This first article comments on the temporary measures that are designed to alleviate the economic impact of COVID-19, namely the suspension of wrongful trading and restrictions placed on creditors serving statutory demands and winding-up petitions. These temporary provisions are intended to provide businesses with some breathing space during the current pandemic whilst they consider rescue options.
Introduction
The concept of winding up does not exclusively apply to insolvent companies. Solvent companies can also be wound up, on the initiation of the company’s directors and shareholders (for example, as part of a corporate reconstruction or to close down non-operating or redundant entities).
An overview of the two key procedures to effect the dissolution of a solvent Australian company, being Members’ Voluntary Liquidation and Deregistration, is set out below.
The High Court has dismissed applications to restrain the presentation of winding up petitions for reasons relating to the Covid-19 pandemic.
In brief
Even with the fiscal stimulus and other measures taken by the Federal and State governments in Australia, corporate insolvencies are likely to increase in coming months.
Under Australia's insolvency regimes, a distressed company may be subject to voluntary administration, creditor's voluntary winding up or court ordered winding up (collectively, an external administration). Each of these processes raises different issues for the commencement and continuation of court and arbitration proceedings.