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.

Insolvency intersected with the UK government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic in an application to the High Court by the administrators of restaurant chain Carluccio’s. Considering the government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (the “Scheme”), the court held that:

This client alert summarises the recent announcement by the UK government concerning reforms to UK insolvency law to help struggling businesses, being:

As COVID-19 continues to cause widespread economic disruption, the UK government has announced lending measures to support struggling businesses. This alert summarises:

• the measures available;
• key legal considerations for directors hoping to take advantage of new debt; and
• practical steps directors can take to protect themselves from personal liability.

This alert is relevant to directors of disrupted, stressed, and distressed companies who are considering additional borrowing.

What has the government announced?

The High Court decision in Re All Star Leisure (Group) Limited (2019), which confirmed the validity of an administration appointment by a qualified floating charge holder (QFCH) out of court hours by CE-Filing, will be welcomed.

The decision accepted that the rules did not currently provide for such an out of hours appointment to take place but it confirmed it was a defect capable of being cured and, perhaps more importantly, the court also stressed the need for an urgent review of the rules so that there is no doubt such an appointment could be made.

Case: Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) [2018] EWHC 1980 (Ch), Hildyard J (27 July 2018)

Summary

Case:Pantiles Investments Ltd & Anor v Winckler [2019] EWHC 1298 (Ch)(23 May 2019)

In certain circumstances, if a claim is proven, the defendant will be able to offset monies that are due to it from the claimant - this is known as set off.

Here, we cover the basics of set off, including the different types of set off and key points you need to know.

What is set off?

Where the right of set off arises, it can act as a defence to part or the whole of a claim.

The High Court decision in Burnden Holdings clarifies the law on retrospective attacks on the declaration of dividends.

SUMMARY