In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.

The statutory demand process

If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.

A recent court decision considers the legal principles and sufficiency of evidence when a court-appointed receiver seeks approval of their remuneration.

A court-appointed receiver needs court approval for the payment of their remuneration. The receiver has the onus of establishing the reasonableness of the work performed and of the remuneration sought.

WE CONSIDER BELOW THE SHARE CHARGE ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS FOR PRIVATE CREDIT LENDERS, WHO MAY NOW COME TO PREFER 'APPROPRIATION' AS THE LESS FORMAL, MORE IMMEDIATE 'LOAN-TO-OWN' TOOL TO SOLVE FOR BORROWER JV DISPUTES, BREAK SHAREHOLDER DEADLOCKS, AND AS A PROACTIVE MEANS TO PRESERVE VALUE IN A CREDIT.

KARL CLOWRY, SEÁN MCGUINNESS, AND AZIZ ABDUL LOOK TO THE LESSONS FOR SHAREHOLDERS, CREDITORS AND ADMINISTRATORS FROM THE FIRST CREDITOR LED RESTRUCTURING PLAN.

The Good Box Co Labs Limited (in Administration) case demonstrates once more the viability of the process for the mid-market and continues a trend of RPs being used by a determined creditor / shareholder constituency to rescue an equity investment within an existing corporate group. In short, the mid-market RP is still a highly situational, albeit flexible, tool."

Houst Limited's (the Company) restructuring plan (under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006) (RP) was recently sanctioned at the High Court on 22 July 2022.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

We consider the implications for office-holder claimants of the recent case ofKelmanson v Gallagher & De Weyer [2022] EWHC 395 (Ch).

The case raises interesting points of practice for insolvency practitioners: a director consciously trying to evade or 'game' the statute won't work to prevent office holder recovery, but a sincerely held but mistaken belief on the director's part as to what was being done doing could.

KEY POINTS:

In our previous commentary, we concluded that the ‘The Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc. to Connected Persons) Regulations 2021’ (Regulations) had enacted a tick-box exercise for experienced market participants.

A Supreme Court in Australia has dismissed an application by a UK company’s moratorium restructuring practitioners for recognition of a UK moratorium and ordered that the company be wound up under Australian law.

The decision provides insights into the interaction between cross-border insolvencies and the winding up in Australia of foreign companies under Australian law.

Introduction

In the matter of Hydrodec Group Plc [2021] NSWSC 755, delivered 24 June 2021, the New South Wales Supreme Court:

It is possible for a trustee in bankruptcy to make a claim to property held by a bankrupt on trust. For example, by lodging a caveat over a home that is held on trust.

A trustee in bankruptcy may be able to make a claim, relying on the bankrupt’s right of indemnity as trustee of the trust. This is because the bankrupt’s right of indemnity, as trustee, is itself property that vests in the trustee in bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

Explaining a trustee’s right of indemnity

The Government is attempting to shackle transfers to connected parties by way of pre-pack Administration.

The new draft 'Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc. to Connected Persons) Regulations 2021', published 24 February (Draft Regulations), are designed to further increase transparency for the wider stakeholder body in connection with pre-packaged Administration business and asset sales to management, sponsors and other connected parties.