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.

Employee terminations and downsizing are features of most restructurings. While employees can typically assert a claim in the insolvency process, parallel claims and complaints with labour relations regulators and tribunals are relatively common. In a recent judgment, the Superior Court of Québec clarified that all employee claims can be extinguished through a plan of arrangement under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), including those filed before regulators and tribunals.

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

On April 1, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an application for leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal of Québec (QCA) in Séquestre de Media5 Corporation, 2020 QCCA 943, which had put an end to a long-lasting debate on the availability of ‘national’ receivers to Québec secured creditors. The decision of the QCA is now final.

In Chandos Construction Ltd. v Deloitte Restructuring Inc., the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the application of the common law anti-deprivation rule in the context of a Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) proceeding.

Earlier this year, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Urbancorp Cumberland 2 GP Inc. (Re)[PDF], which clarifies the scope and effectiveness of a section 9(1) vendor’s trust under the Ontario Construction Lien Act in insolvency proceedings.

On July 20, 2020, the Court of Appeal of Québec (the QCA) released its reasons in Séquestre de Media5 Corporation,^[1] putting an end to a long-lasting debate on the availability of national receivers to Québec secured creditors.

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