Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
In a judgment issued yesterday (Francis v Gross [2024] NZCA 528), the Court of Appeal unanimously overturned the controversial High Court decision in Francis v Gross [2023] NZHC 1107 and held that purchasers of partly constructed modular buildings (pods) did not have equitable liens (at all, and especially not in priority to secured creditors) over those pods.
2022年8月31日、ケイマン諸島のリストラクチャリング・オフィサー制度が施行されました[1]。この制度は、ケイマン諸島における支払不能状態会社の再建に関して、更に柔軟な再建方法を導入するものです。これは、リストラクチャリング請願の提出日から自動支払猶予期間が開始するというという特色もあります。
リストラクチャリング・オフィサー制度導入前において[2]、法定支払猶予の効果を有する再建方法は、ケイマン諸島における裁判所監督形式である再建手続において「ライトタッチ」（訳注：一時的な関与のみの想定）ベースの暫定清算人が選任される場合に限定されていました[3]。リストラクチャリング・オフィサー制度は、その手続面を見直し、さらにその利用に際して障害となるものを取り除いています。これには、(a)暫定清算人選任前に会社清算請願を提出しなければならない点（これは社会的信用を毀損する結果もたらします。）[4]、および、(b)暫定清算人が選任されるまでの間は支払猶予が認められない点[5]が含まれます。
2022年8月31日より前、ケイマン裁判所は、会社法（Companies Act）第104条(3)に基づく会社清算請願が提出された場合、以下の両要件を満たすときに、ライトタッチの暫定清算人を選任することができました。
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.
This morning, after much anticipation, the Supreme Court has released its judgment in Yan v Mainzeal Property Construction Limited (in liq) [2023] NZSC 113, largely upholding the Court of Appeal's decision, and awarding damages of $39.8m against the directors collectively, with specified limits for certain directors. The decision signals that a strong emphasis on 'creditor protection' is now embedded in New Zealand company law.
In recent years much ink has been spilled opining on the so called 'Quincecare' duty of care, and the limits of it (see links to our recent insolvency law updates covering the topic below). The judgment in Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363 was a first instance decision on Steyn J, in which he found that a bank has a duty not to execute a payment instruction given by an agent of its customer without making inquiries if the bank has reasonable grounds for believing that the agent is attempting to defraud the customer.
Over the past two years, there has been an interesting trend of courts, in certain circumstances, borrowing from principles of insolvency law when determining analogous questions of trust law. Most recently, the private wealth industry has seen this very application in connection with the now infamous proceedings relating to the trust known as the Ironzar II Trust[1].
The United Kingdom Supreme Court has just released an important insolvency judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 (Sequana), which concerns when and the extent to which directors of a company must consider the interests of creditors.
The United Kingdom Supreme Court has just released an important insolvency judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 (Sequana), which concerns when and the extent to which directors of a company must consider the interests of creditors.