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

Actions brought against the BHS directors by the group’s liquidators have resulted in the largest reported award for wrongful trading since the provision’s introduction, but the judgment highlights some unsettled areas of the law relating to directors’ duties.

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

The Legal Statement applies areas of insolvency law to digital assets, providing valuable guidance on the approach English courts will take.

The Legal Statement applies areas of insolvency law to digital assets, providing valuable guidance on the approach English courts will take.

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.

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Sequana¹leaves many unanswered questions, and finding a common thread between the four quite separate judgments has proved challenging for practitioners and directors alike. The recent decision in Hunt v.

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.

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