Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

The High Court has handed down judgment against two former directors of a number of BHS group companies. The Joint Liquidators, Anthony Wright and Geoffrey Rowley (both of FRP Advisory) brought claims against Lennart Henningson and Dominic Chandler for wrongful trading, misfeasance trading and individual misfeasance.

Wrongful trading

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.

TODAY, THE EAGERLY-AWAITED JUDGMENT HAS BEEN HANDED DOWN BY MR JUSTICE ZACAROLI IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS MADE BY OFFICE-HOLDERS OF A NUMBER OF FAILED ENERGY SUPPLIERS. 

The impact of this judgment will be felt much wider than just within the applicants' insolvent estates and it is relevant to any office-holder or unsecured creditor of a failed energy supplier.

On 12 May 2021 the FCA issued finalised guidance for insolvency practitioners who are tasked with managing insolvencies of regulated firms.

Aiming to help insolvency practitioners understand how to deal with firms in line with FCA requirements, the guidance covers the process from end-to-end including expectations in the pre-insolvency stage and specific procedures relating to insolvencies and restructuring. The aim of the guidance is to assist with the minimising of the impact of a failure of a regulated firm

In bankruptcy as in federal jurisprudence generally, to characterize something with the near-epithet of “federal common law” virtually dooms it to rejection.

In January 2020 we reported that, after the reconsideration suggested by two Supreme Court justices and revisions to account for the Supreme Court’s Merit Management decision,[1] the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stood by its origina

It seems to be a common misunderstanding, even among lawyers who are not bankruptcy lawyers, that litigation in federal bankruptcy court consists largely or even exclusively of disputes about the avoidance of transactions as preferential or fraudulent, the allowance of claims and the confirmation of plans of reorganization. However, with a jurisdictional reach that encompasses “all civil proceedings . . .

I don’t know if Congress foresaw, when it enacted new Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Code[1] in the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), that debtors in pending cases would seek to convert or redesignate their cases as Subchapter V cases when SBRA became effective on February 19, 2020, but it was foreseeable.

Our February 26 post [1] reported on the first case dealing with the question whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case may redesignate it as a case under Subchapter V, [2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), which became effective on February 19.