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.

The COVID-19 pandemic is also keeping legislators on their toes, who are continuing to try to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on the economy. The focus was initially on the temporary suspension of the obligation to file for insolvency by the COVID-19 Insolvency Suspension Act (COVInsAG). Following on from this, with the Act on the Further Development of Restructuring and Insolvency Law (SanInsFoG), which came into force on 1 January 2021, the legislator has further modified obligations of conduct and, correspondingly, the liability of managing directors in the crisis of the company.

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.

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.

Mit rechtskräftig gewordenem Urteil vom 06.03.2019 (Az. 5 O 234/17) hat das Landgericht Wiesbaden entschieden, dass es dem Insolvenzverwalter und allen versicherten Personen verwehrt ist, Versicherungsschutz für Inanspruchnahmen zu verlangen, die einer Versicherungsperiode zuzuordnen sind, für die der Insolvenzverwalter die Nichterfüllung des D&O-Versicherungsvertrags gewählt hat.

In a final ruling dated 6 March 2019 (Case ref.: 5 O 234/17), the Regional Court of Wiesbaden decided that the insolvency administrator and all insured persons are not entitled to claim insurance coverage for claims attributable to an insurance period for which the insolvency administrator has chosen not to fulfi l the D&O insurance contract.

In our update this month we take a look at some recent decisions that will be of interest to those involved in insolvency litigation. These include:

Creditor not obliged to take steps in foreign proceedings to preserve security

No duty of care owed for negligent bank reference to undisclosed principal

The Supreme Court has held that a bank which negligently provided a favourable credit reference for one of its customers did not owe a duty of care to an undisclosed principal who acted on that reference.