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.
The recent Supreme Court of New South Wales decision of Fitz Jersey Pty Ltd v Atlas Construction Group Pty Ltd (in liq)1 clarifies that s 588FF of the Corporations Act permits an assignee of a liquidator’s voidable transaction claim to trace a company’s property or proceeds for the purposes of the assignee’s recovery proceedings.
This was first published in the LexisNexis Insolvency Law Bulletin (Vol. 21, No. 5 & 6).
This article is co-authored by Justin Ward of Litigation Capital Management and Marcel Fernandes of 12 Wentworth Selborne Chambers.
Background
The plaintiff was the primary trading entity within a larger group of companies which operated a development and construction business.
The liquidation of the group was complex, with a significant number of claims identified as requiring investigation. Further, ASIC’s allegations of serious misconduct resulted in a significant amount of the liquidator’s time being allocated to assisting ASIC with its investigation.
Problem
This article was originally published in the Australian Restructuring, Insolvency & Turnaround Association Journal (Volume 32 #01 2020)
The first of March marked the second anniversary of the changes to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) permitting an external administrator to assign rights to sue. The Australian Government proposed the reform in the hope that the ‘sale of rights of action may enable the value in such rights to be realised’[1].
The United Kingdom and Australia have recently implemented legislative changes to permit external administrators to assign or sell causes of action available to them.
The Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.
A recent decision of the High Court of New Zealand provides helpful guidance for insolvency practitioners on how aspects of the voluntary administration regime should operate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
On 30 March 2020, the board of directors of EncoreFX (NZ) Limited resolved to appoint administrators to the company. By then, New Zealand was already at Level 4 on the four-level alert system for COVID-19.
The UK Court of Appeal has held that legal privilege outlasts the dissolution of a company in Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600.
Legal advice privilege applies to communications between a client and its lawyers. The general rule is that those communications cannot be disclosed to third parties unless and until the client waives the privilege.