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.

Background:

Early last week PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc., in its capacity as trustee in bankruptcy for Sequoia Resources Corp., filed a statement of claim against Perpetual Energy Inc., attempting to unwind an asset sale from Oct. 1, 2016. Alternatively, PwC is seeking $217-million in damages. Along with Perpetual, PwC has named certain subsidiaries and its CEO, Susan Riddell Rose, as defendants.

In its statement of claim, the plaintiff is relying upon legal principles associated with oppression, reviewable transactions in insolvencies and regulatory law in support of its action.

Early last week PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc., in its capacity as trustee in bankruptcy for Sequoia Resources Corp., filed a statement of claim against Perpetual Energy Inc., attempting to unwind an asset sale from Oct. 1, 2016. Alternatively, PwC is seeking $217-million in damages. Along with Perpetual, PwC has named certain subsidiaries and its CEO, Susan Riddell Rose, as defendants.

In its statement of claim, the plaintiff is relying upon legal principles associated with oppression, reviewable transactions in insolvencies and regulatory law in support of its action.