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.

In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.

The statutory demand process

If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.

A recent court decision considers the legal principles and sufficiency of evidence when a court-appointed receiver seeks approval of their remuneration.

A court-appointed receiver needs court approval for the payment of their remuneration. The receiver has the onus of establishing the reasonableness of the work performed and of the remuneration sought.

The end of 2022 and the start of 2023 has seen a steady uptick in restructuring activity, not only for companies with complex capital structures but also small-to-medium sized enterprises seeking to take advantage of powerful restructuring tools (such as the UK’s Part 26A Restructuring Plan or Super Scheme).

The case of Goodbox Co Labs Limited (in administration) (Goodbox) is the first example of an individual creditor unilaterally seeking to access the Super Scheme.

The restructuring of Hong Kong Airlines has been approved. It is the first time that a parallel English Restructuring Plan and Hong Kong Scheme of Arrangement have successfully been used to restructure Hong Kong, PRC and English law-governed debts.

For the background to the restructuring and details of the plan and scheme, please see our article here.

There has been no shortage of distressed airlines over the last 2.5 years as the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic reverberations wreaked havoc across the aviation sector and travel industry alike. Virgin Atlantic Airlines, Norwegian Air, Garuda, Malaysia Airlines (its leasing wing MAB Leasing Limited), AirAsia X and SAS are just some of the airlines to have gone through, or are in the process of, debt restructurings or deployment of asset and liability management strategies.

A Supreme Court in Australia has dismissed an application by a UK company’s moratorium restructuring practitioners for recognition of a UK moratorium and ordered that the company be wound up under Australian law.

The decision provides insights into the interaction between cross-border insolvencies and the winding up in Australia of foreign companies under Australian law.

Introduction

In the matter of Hydrodec Group Plc [2021] NSWSC 755, delivered 24 June 2021, the New South Wales Supreme Court:

A week is often described as a long time in politics, and so also (it seems) with the restructuring market.

Last week, we saw significant strides forward with:

The restructuring market has been eagerly anticipating the judgments in the New Look and Regis CVA challenges. The New Look judgment was handed down on 10 May 2021 and the Regis Judgment followed on 17 May 2021. This article briefly sets out the issues in the New Look CVA challenge, the decision of Mr Justice Zacaroli and what this means for the future of CVAs.

Overview of the New Look CVA Challenge

The claim brought by the Applicants (a consortium of compromised landlords) can be summarised briefly under three heads of claim: