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

The Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) and Companies (Amendment) Act 2023 (Collective Redundancies AmendmentAct) came into operation on 1 July 2024.

The Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) and Companies (Amendment) Act 2023 (Act) came into effect on 1 July 2024.

The Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) and Companies (Amendment) Act 2024 (Act) has been signed into law but awaits a commencement order to bring it into operation.

In summary, the Act amends the Companies Act 2014 (Companies Act) by modifying the attribution test for related companies to contribute to the debts of the company being wound up, broadening the operative time for unfair preferences, and varying the test for reckless trading.

1. Related company contribution

Following on from the UK Supreme Court decision in Sequana (discussed here), the recent UK High Court (UKHC) decision in Hunt v Singh [2023] EWHC 1784 (Ch), further considered the duty of directors to take into account the interests of creditors in certain circumstances.

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 High Court (Court) recently dismissed a petition seeking the winding up of a biofuel company (Company).

The ex tempore judgment is of note because it considers the standing of the Petitioner to bring the application and the consequences of a relevant witness not being cross-examined by the Petitioner on his affidavit evidence regarding the solvency of the Company.

Background

In earlier posts, the Red Zone has discussed the Supreme Court’s ruling in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 142 S. Ct. 1770 (2022), which held that increased U.S. Trustee quarterly fees for large Chapter 11 debtors between 2018 and 2020 under the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017 (the “2017 Act”) were unconstitutional because of disparate treatment of Chapter 11 debtors in Bankruptcy Administrator (“BA”) districts, and subsequent judicial decisions determining the appropriate remedy for debtors who overpaid those fees.

A previously unsettled aspect regarding the High Court’s (Court) jurisdiction to appoint an examiner to a company which is not formed or registered under the Companies Act 2014 (2014 Act), has been considered in the recent case of In the matter of MAC Interiors Ltd [2023] IEHC 395.

We have previously discussed the growing list of judicial decisions addressing the appropriate remedy for overpayment of U.S. Trustee (“UST”) quarterly fees. In U.S. Tr. Region 21 v. Bast Amron LLP (In re Mosaic Mgmt. Grp., Inc.), No. 20-12547, 2023 WL 4144557 (11th Cir.