Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
The High Court has scrutinised the validity of a Declaration of Trust and the enforcement of charging orders. Wade v Singh sheds light on the intricate balance between property rights, trust law, and creditor protection in an insolvency. The case, centered around a property known as "the Oaks," involved the liquidators of MSD Cash & Carry Plc (in liquidation) seeking to enforce charging orders against properties owned by various family members involved in the business to satisfy a significant judgment debt.
Background of the Case
The High Court has confirmed in the recent case of Hyde and another v Djurberg and others ([2024] EWHC 1188 (Ch)) that it won't tolerate the concealment of after-acquired property from trustees in bankruptcy, even when the property is the subject of a settlement agreement and paid onto various third parties. The judgment highlights the importance of monitoring a bankrupt's affairs as a trustee, acting quickly to preserve assets and serving a notice pursuant to section 307 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Act) if there's a potential claim for after-acquired property.
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.
When finances become distressed, creditors examine all avenues to recover their debt which can result in any intercreditor agreements being thrown into the spotlight. The recent judgment of Re Arboretum Devon is another helpful reminder to lenders entering into an intercreditor agreement (ICA) that these should be drafted with the worst-case scenario in mind and using the clearest language in order to avoid disputes arising at the time of enforcement.
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.
In Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v PAG Asset Preservation Ltd [2019] EWHC 2890 the Secretary presented petitions under s 124A of the Insolvency Act 1986 to wind up two companies on public interest grounds. These companies were PAG Asset Preservation Limited and MB Vacant Property Solutions Limited (the Companies).
The Privy Council has rejected an attempt to block a cross-border liquidation on procedural grounds in UBS AG New York v Fairfield Sentry [2019] UKPC 20.