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.

Summary

The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.

Further to our update to the existing insolvency laws, whilst it appears from the recent government announcement that UK wrongful trading provisions may be retrospectively relaxed from 1 March for a three month period, directors should continue to have regard to their individual conduct, particularly given the increase of claims funded by the growing litigation funding market.

The UK Government has announced changes to the existing UK insolvency laws in order to ease pressure on companies and give them breathing space to trade through the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hunt (as Liquidator of Systems Building Services Group Limited) v Michie and Others [2020] EWHC 54 (Ch)

On 21 January 2020 ICC Judge Barber handed down a decision which considered, in what is believed to be a first, the question of whether director’s duties survive the insolvency of a Company.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).

The Supreme Court this week resolved a long-standing open issue regarding the treatment of trademark license rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of Mission Products, a licensee under a trademark license agreement that had been rejected in the chapter 11 case of Tempnology, the debtor-licensor, determining that the rejection constituted a breach of the agreement but did not rescind it.

Few issues in bankruptcy create as much contention as disputes regarding the right of setoff. This was recently highlighted by a decision in the chapter 11 case of Orexigen Therapeutics in the District of Delaware.