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.

In life (as in business), as Heraclitus said, “the only constant is change.” In today’s fast-paced economy, this axiom should be kept in mind during contract negotiations, especially in a bear market.

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

Op 12 november 2020 heeft de Tweede Kamer het wetsvoorstel tot wijziging van de Tijdelijke wet COVID-19 SZW en JenV (35557) als hamerstuk aangenomen. Vandaag, 24 november 2020, is het wetsvoorstel ook door de Eerste Kamer als hamerstuk afgedaan. Het wetvoorstel maakt het mogelijk (in Hoofdstuk 2 Tijdelijke voorziening betalingsuitstel COVID-19) om de rechter te verzoeken:

A legislative proposal to amend the Temporary Act COVID-19 was adopted by the Dutch parliament on 12 November 2020, and adopted by the Dutch Senate on 24 November 2020. The proposal (the COVID-19 Amendment Act) will enter into force shortly and remain in effect until 1 February 2021. This GT Alert summarizes the measures included in COVID-19 Amendment Act Chapter 2 (Temporary measures for the stay on recovery measures COVID-19).

The COVID-19 Amendment Act provides (in Chapter 2) for the possibility of the debtor requesting that the courts, in connection with the pandemic:

A comparison of the new Dutch Scheme and the new UK Restructuring Plan.

Introduction

A comparison of the new Dutch Scheme and the new UK Restructuring Plan.

Introduction

A 139ZQ notice issued by the Official Receiver is a powerful tool for trustees in bankruptcy seeking to recover a benefit received by a third party from an alleged void transaction. These include transactions such as an unfair preference, an undervalued transaction, or a transaction to defeat creditors.

Given the adverse consequences for noncompliance, a recipient of a 139ZQ notice should take it seriously and obtain legal advice without delay.

Section 139ZQ notices