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

When a company is in financial distress, its directors will face difficult choices. Should they trade on to trade out of the company's financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they delay filing and the company goes into administration or liquidation, will the directors be at risk from a wrongful trading claim by the subsequently appointed liquidator? Once in liquidation, will they be held to have separately breached their duties as directors and face a misfeasance claim? If they file precipitously, will creditors complain they did not do enough to save the business?

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 UK High Court has considered and granted permission for a so called “credit bid” in an application by the Special Administrators of Sova Capital Ltd (in special administration) for a substantial portfolio of illiquid Russian securities. The transaction structure, involving the transfer of securities in exchange for the release of a £233m claim against the estate, is unprecedented in the UK where ‘credit bidding’ has no technical recognition.

Company directors who act in breach of their statutory and fiduciary duties can face disqualification for up to 15 years pursuant to the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA). Prior to 15 February 2022, civil disqualification proceedings on the grounds of unfitness could only be brought in relation to directors of 'live' companies under s.8 CDDA (where the court retains a discretion whether or not to disqualify) or those subject to insolvency proceedings under s.6 CDDA (where the court is obliged to exercise its power to disqualify).

In bankruptcy as in federal jurisprudence generally, to characterize something with the near-epithet of “federal common law” virtually dooms it to rejection.

In January 2020 we reported that, after the reconsideration suggested by two Supreme Court justices and revisions to account for the Supreme Court’s Merit Management decision,[1] the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stood by its origina

It seems to be a common misunderstanding, even among lawyers who are not bankruptcy lawyers, that litigation in federal bankruptcy court consists largely or even exclusively of disputes about the avoidance of transactions as preferential or fraudulent, the allowance of claims and the confirmation of plans of reorganization. However, with a jurisdictional reach that encompasses “all civil proceedings . . .

I don’t know if Congress foresaw, when it enacted new Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Code[1] in the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), that debtors in pending cases would seek to convert or redesignate their cases as Subchapter V cases when SBRA became effective on February 19, 2020, but it was foreseeable.

Our February 26 post [1] reported on the first case dealing with the question whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case may redesignate it as a case under Subchapter V, [2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), which became effective on February 19.