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.

Le dépôt des comptes annuels est l'une des obligations légales les plus importantes pour les sociétés. En effet, à défaut du dépôt des comptes (dans le délai légal), la responsabilité des administrateurs peut être engagée. Ce manquement peut entraîner de lourdes conséquences ... même si cela ne se produit qu’une fois. Et un homme ou une femme prévenue(e) en vaut deux. Il va de soi que vous ne voulez pas vous réveiller avec une société qui a été dissoute judiciairement alors que vous y avez encore des actifs et des activités.

De jaarrekening neerleggen is een van de belangrijkste wettelijke verplichtingen van vennootschappen. Meer nog, bij niet (tijdige) neerlegging komt de aansprakelijkheid van bestuurders in het gedrang. Vennootschappen die hun jaarrekening niet tijdig hebben neergelegd riskeren verregaande gevolgen … zelfs na één keer. En een gewaarschuwd man of vrouw is er twee waard. U wil niet wakker worden met een vennootschap die gerechtelijk ontbonden werd terwijl u daar nog activa en activiteiten in hebt.

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.

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.

The judicial power of the United States is vested in courts created under Article III of the Constitution. However, Congress created the current bankruptcy court system over 40 years ago pursuant to Article I of the Constitution rather than under Article III.

In the framework of the reform of insolvency law that entered into force on 1 May 2018, the legislator has introduced important amendments regarding the liability of the directors in case of bankruptcy. These amended liability rules apply to directors of companies and not to physical persons who operate without a corporate structure.

1. Liability claim for apparent gross fault