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

"The law on 'knowing receipt' has perplexed judges and academics alike for several decades" – Lord Burrows (paragraph 99).

They say every man needs protection, they say that every man must fall.¹

Summary

In the first appeal of a restructuring plan under Part 26A Companies Act 2006, the English Court of Appeal unanimously set aside the first instance decision sanctioning the plan proposed by AGPS BondCo PLC, part of the Adler real estate group¹.

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.

Judgment creditors should be aware that the English Court of Appeal has given guidance on the proper construction of s423 Insolvency Act 1986 (transactions defrauding creditors)¹.

Summary

Trustees and officeholders (such as administrators, receivers and liquidators) can ask the Court to approve steps that they propose to take in the administration of their estate (such as the sale of an asset or settlement of a claim).

Summary

The Court¹ exercised its discretion to sanction a restructuring plan proposed by AGPS BondCo PLC (the Company) (part of the Adler real estate group) to amend indebtedness arising under six series of senior unsecured notes governed by German law, which matured on different dates through to 2029.

In the recent restructuring plan case of Re Nasmyth Group Limited¹("Nasmyth"), the English High Court declined to exercise its discretion to order "cross class cram down" of HMRC, which was a dissenting plan creditor and which had opposed sanction of the plan, concluding that it would be unfair to sanction the plan.