The corporate attribution doctrine concerns the attribution of the actions of a corporation’s directing mind to the corporation itself. On March 10, 2022, in Ernst & Young Inc. v. Aquino [Aquino], the Court of Appeal released what it described as a decision of first impression in which the Court considered the doctrine in the bankruptcy and insolvency context.

The latest chapter in the Mainzeal saga played out last week with the Supreme Court hearing the directors' appeal (and the liquidators' cross-appeal) against the Court of Appeal's decision in Yan v Mainzeal Property and Construction Ltd (in liq) [2021] NZCA 99.

A bankruptcy court’s recent decision in Bailey Tool & Mfg. Co., et al. v. Republic Bus. Credit (In re Bailey Tool & Mfg. Co.), Adv. No. 16-03025-SGJ (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2021) serves as a reminder for lenders that they should avoid certain actions when dealing with distressed borrowers. Specifically, in Bailey, a bankruptcy judge found a lender squarely at fault for its borrower’s bankruptcy and subsequent liquidation, and held the lender liable to the borrower’s bankruptcy estate for various breach of contract, tort, and bankruptcy claims.

In the past, the reliance on section 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) as a ‘set-off’ defence to an unfair preference claim, under section 588FA of the Act, has caused controversy in the insolvency profession. Due to a recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia, the ‘set-off’ defence is no longer a defence to an unfair preference claim.

On 23 February 2022, WBHO Australia Pty Ltd and 17 other companies in the Probuild group (Probuild, or the Group), entered voluntary administration in Australia. Probuild is one of the largest construction groups in Australia, working on many large office, residential and resources related construction projects across the country.

Litigation funding can play an important role in allowing liquidators to recover debts on behalf of liquidated companies, where there may be a real prospect of success in recovery proceedings but where obstacles such as funding or security for costs may present themselves.

Good evening.

Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of March 7, 2022.

In Ernst & Young Inc. v. Aquino, the court upheld the application judge’s decision to grant the orders the Bondfield monitor and trustee in bankruptcy requiring payments made at undervalue to be repaid.  In coming to its decision, the Court applied the corporate attribution doctrine.

OVERVIEW

Jeremy Richmond QC and Benjamin Joseph contributed to the R3 Members' Magazine for their Case Summaries section. This was first published in the Winter 2021 edition of Recovery. 

Andrew v. Kingsway Asset Finance

今回のニュースレターでは、2022 年１⽉の破産倒産法関連の主なアップデートについて取り扱ってい ます。最⾼裁判所（＝SC）、会社法上訴審判所（＝NCLAT）、会社法審判所（＝NCLT）にて下された 重要な判決についてまとめました。 1) ADVANCE EXTENDED BY A DIRECTOR TO THE COMPANY IS A FINANCIAL DEBT Matter: Mrs. Jayanthi G. Ravi v. Chemizol Additives Pvt. Ltd. Order dated: 03 January 2022 Summary: 本件は、Chemizol Additives Pvt. Ltd. （＝Chemizol）の元取締役である Jayanthi G. Ravi （＝債権者） が、Chemizol への融資を巡り、破産⼿続きの開始を NCLT に求めたものです。NCLT は、融資⾦額が⾦ 融債務であるか否かが明確でないという理由で、申⽴てを棄却しました。Chemizol と債権者の間にロー ン契約が存在せず、取締役会や株主の事前承認が得られていないことも論点の 1 つでした。当該 NCLT の命令に対して、異議が唱えられました。

Our recent updates have explained the rise in instances of fraud and the civil litigation options open to victims of fraudulent conduct.