September 2025 Check-in: Did the Supreme Court of Canada change fraudulent conveyance or corporate attribution rules?

Short answer: Not yet. As of September 2025, there is no new Supreme Court of Canada ruling that changes how courts assess fraudulent conveyances (voidable transactions) or apply corporate attribution in insolvency and bankruptcy. The operational playbook still leans on the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) sections 95–96 and existing Supreme Court guidance on corporate attribution, with active refinements from appellate courts. Always verify the latest judgments on the Supreme Court’s site before advising a board or filing a claim using the current-year index for decisions at the Supreme Court of Canada judgments (2025) and the statutory framework under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).

Key insight: In 2025, the practical battleground remains timing, valuation, and intent under BIA ss. 95–96, not a new Supreme Court standard.

 

What this means for corporate counsel and insolvency teams

Why it matters. Fraudulent conveyance and corporate attribution issues are core to recovery strategy, D&O risk, and deal hygiene. Without a fresh Supreme Court reset, your near-term wins come from speed, documentation, and early remedies. For SMBs and in-house teams under budget pressure, efficient playbooks beat long theory.

Where to look. Monitor SCC dockets and appellate decisions; pressure-test your case under existing BIA tools and corporate attribution boundaries. For plain-language background and regulator context, see the federal framework and trustee practices via the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (OSB).

 

A quick, actionable playbook (built for 2025 reality)

Step 1. Triage your facts fast. Map counterparties, dates, consideration, and solvency windows. Anchor every transfer to a clear valuation date. Why: BIA ss. 95–96 hinge on timing and value. How: Build a one-page chronology with bank records, board minutes, and cap table changes.

Step 2. Preserve and pull data. Send hold notices and request exports from accounting, payroll, and cloud storage. Why: Intent and undervalue are proven by documents. How: Set 48-hour collection checkpoints; capture emails, messaging apps, and director texts likely to show purpose.

Step 3. Run the statutory tests. Screen for preferences (s. 95) and transfers at undervalue (s. 96). Why: You need the right cause of action and remedy. How: Apply simple flags—insider status, proximity to filing, non-arm’s length, lack of consideration, and unusual timing relative to covenant breaches.

Step 4. Choose your first remedy. Consider Mareva or Norwich relief, an Anton Piller, or a registrar’s freezing direction. Why: Speed drives recoveries. How: Draft for proportionality; target specific assets and accounts, not generic fishing expeditions.

Step 5. Stress-test corporate attribution exposure. Ask whether the company should be fixed with a directing mind’s intent, or whether public-policy limits apply in insolvency contexts. Why: Attribution can make or break s. 96 claims and auditor/advisor defenses. How: Identify the “purpose” of the impugned acts, who benefited, board oversight, and whether attributing the wrong would thwart the insolvency regime’s goals.

Step 6. Prepare for valuation fights. Expect challenges on fair market value versus distressed value, and on expert methodology. Why: Valuation is the swing issue in s. 96. How: Line up a valuation expert early; lock in comparable transactions and cash-flow evidence.

Step 7. Coordinate with monitors/receivers. Unify your theory of loss, discovery, and interim distributions. Why: Fragmented strategy erodes leverage. How: Hold weekly case huddles; set document and affidavit deadlines and an early mediation target.

 

Practical scenarios you’ll likely face in 2025

Board sign-off on related-party debt cleanup. Document the business purpose and independent review. Build meeting minutes reflecting market checks and solvency analysis. When a filing looms, assume ss. 95–96 scrutiny.

Vendor pressure pre-filing. If paying a critical supplier, paper the “ordinary course” rationale, alternatives considered, and business necessity. Reconcile timing against the preference window.

Management-led carve-out. Use fairness opinions and independent committees. Price against third-party bids to avoid a later undervalue claim.

 

Benchmarks and expected outcomes

Timing. Early interim relief in 10–14 days; merits hearings in 6–12 months. Recovery. Negotiated recoveries can reach [placeholder: 30–60%] of claimed amounts when you secure assets early; trial outcomes vary with valuation proof. Cost control. AI-first document review and timeline building can cut first-pass review time by [placeholder: 25–40%] while improving intent detection.

 

Why this guide is relevant now

GenAI tools make it easier to trace payment flows, surface “intent” in communications, and draft affidavits fast. But the legal standards haven’t shifted at the Supreme Court level in 2025, so credibility still comes from clean evidence, disciplined valuation, and smart interim remedies.

For the primary legal framework and current judgments, track the Supreme Court of Canada judgments (2025) and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA). For trustee practice norms and process context, review regulator resources via the OSB’s federal insolvency framework.

 

Need a fast assessment or court-ready plan?

Work with a team that blends insolvency litigation, valuation strategy, and AI-enabled evidence management. Start with a 30-minute intake and a two-week action plan through Lamba Law. Explore our Services, meet the team at About Us, or jump straight to Work With Us.