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.

Administrators of Arena Television are reportedly investigating an alleged fraud involving millions of pandemic loans, where government-backed loans were offered to businesses to help them deal with the pandemic, and are suing two of the directors for breach of fiduciary duty. More companies may be in a similar position as, according to the National Audit Office, it is likely that the level of fraud in the bounce back loan scheme ranges from £3.5bn to £4.9bn. Who can claim these ill-gotten gains?

Directors’ duties

Recent analysis by Begbies Traynor shows that more than half of UK businesses are carrying “toxic debt” that they might struggle to repay over the next 12 months. What if the company you are thinking of suing, or that is suing you, is one of them?

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.

New restrictions contained in the Corporate Governance & Insolvency Act 2020 now in force severely impact the steps creditors can take to get payment of an undisputed debt owed by a company.

Creditors cannot now use statutory demands to threaten that a company will be wound up if it does not pay what is owed. This is because any statutory demand made between 1 March 2020 and 30 September 2020 will be void.

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.