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

Insolvency & Restructuring Bulletin

A recent court decision has provided clarity on the application of the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (“WEPPA”) to former employees of companies undergoing restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”). The central issue was whether WEPPA applies to employees who were terminated as a result of a reverse vesting order (“RVO”).

Background

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.

Case Trends

On March 23, 2020, we commented on the Quebec Court of Appeal’s decision in the Arrangement relating to Consultants SM inc. case. The City of Montreal (the “City”) appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada and the appeal was heard on May 20, 2021.

On December 10, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “Supreme Court”) dismissed the City’s appeal, thereby rendering an important decision with respect to “pre-post compensation” and “non-dischargeable debts” under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”).

Le 23 mars 2020, nous avons commenté l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Québec dans le dossier Arrangement relatif à Consultants SM inc. La Ville de Montréal (la « Ville ») a porté cet arrêt devant la Cour suprême du Canada et l’audition du pourvoi a eu lieu le 20 mai 2021.

Le 2 décembre 2020, la Cour d’appel du Québec (la « Cour ») a rendu un arrêt important dans l’affaire Syndic de Montréal c’est électrique confirmant la décision du juge de première instance à l’effet que la Ville de Montréal (la « Ville ») ne détenait pas de sûreté sur les sommes détenues dans le compte bancaire de Montréal C’est Électrique (« MCE » ou la « débitrice »).

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)

(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.

Judge: Preston

Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever