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.

Aussetzung der Insolvenzantragspflicht, Lockerung der Zahlungsverbote, Einschränkung der Insolvenzanfechtung, Ausschluss der Kündigung von Miet- und Pachtverhältnissen sowie Verbraucherdarlehensverträgen, Moratorium zu Gunsten von Verbrauchern und Kleinstunternehmen betreffend wesentlicher Dauerschuldverhältnisse, weitere Regelungen

Germany has notoriously broad voidability laws. As a rule of thumb, any payment by a third party has high voidability risks if the third party has no obligation to make the payment under the contract. Such payments qualify as incongruent (3 months hardening period, very few further requirements) and often qualify as gratuitous (4 years hardening period, without any further requirements). A recent decision of the German High Court has stirred hope that the Court may give some leeway to cash pool payments by group companies.