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.

The Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) Scotland Act was passed by the Scottish Government on 28 June 2022 and enacted on 10 August 2022 (the "Act"). It makes two key changes to insolvency and diligence in Scotland.

Bankruptcy floor limit

If you have fraudulently obtained Covid-19 financial support, such as a Bounce Back Loan, you must be pretty worried by recent headlines that show company directors being disqualified, fined and jailed.

It would appear that the trend we reported in the rising numbers of Scottish corporate insolvencies is showing no let up.

The recent English High Court decision of Re Glam and Tan Ltd [2022] EWHC 855 (Ch) highlights the ways in which a director can be found liable, as well as the reasons why they may be relieved of responsibility for breaches of section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which penalises delinquent directors and officers.

The legislation

Following the Coronavirus pandemic, the Scottish Government introduced two key Acts. The Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020 and the Coronavirus (Scotland) (No.2) Act 2020 - together, these Acts made two significant changes to personal insolvency in Scotland.

The 2020 Coronavirus (Scotland) Acts

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.