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

The recent Grand Court decision of Ltd. (Unreported, 19 June 2024, Kawaley J) has reiterated and further clarified the principles to be applied to the remuneration of court-appointed receivers. Given the limited Cayman case law on the topic, the decision provides useful guidance and certainty to Receivers, and to those advising them.

What is a court-appointed 'Receiver', and what is 'remuneration'?

In March 2015 the major high street retailer British Home Stores (BHS) was acquired for £1 by Retail Acquisitions Limited (RAL), a company owned by Mr Dominic Chappell. Mr Chappell became a director of the BHS entities upon completion of the purchase, together with three other individuals.

In Mitchell and others v Al Jaber; Al Jaber and others v JJW Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 423 the Court of Appeal has confirmed that a director remained subject to a continuing fiduciary duty post liquidation when purporting to transfer assets owned by that company, on the basis he was an “intermeddler”. While the case concerned a BVI company, the court’s decision was based on English-law authorities and therefore has wider significance.

Facts

The Grand Court has allowed the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator under section 104(3) of the Companies Act (2023 Revision) (the Act) for the purpose of facilitating a restructuring, rather than using the tailor-made Restructuring Officer provisions under section 91(B) of the Act.

Background

In the recent case of Loveridge v Povey and Ors [2024] EWHC 329 (Ch) a company shareholder sought to challenge the administrators’ decision to rescue a balance sheet solvent company as a going concern by securing additional funding, as opposed to pursuing a sale of the business.

Background

McDermott restructuring plan approved amidst parallel settlement negotiations

The English court has given the green light to the restructuring plan (the Plan) proposed by CB&I UK Limited, part of the McDermott Group, marking the first such approval since the Court of Appeal’s pivotal decision in the Adler case (see our previous update).

The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in the case of Humphrey v Bennett, providing some useful guidance on the nature and scope of a director’s duty to avoid conflicts of interest. The case was an appeal against summary judgment of the High Court following a derivative claim brought on behalf of a company by minority shareholders. The case will be of particular interest to directors of smaller companies whose management structures very often operate on a more informal footing.

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.

In the Matter of Holt Fund SPC (Unreported, 26 January 2024) is the first occasion where an application has been made to appoint Restructuring Officers over portfolios of a segregated portfolio company. At first glance the judgment appears uncontroversial. However, it highlights a lacuna in the law which readers should be aware of.

Background

The Petitioner sought the appointment of Restructuring Officers (ROs) in respect of two segregated portfolios of the Holt Fund SPC.