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.

Introduction

The enforcement of court orders that are designed to preserve, trace or track crypto-assets within North America is often limited in practice. As seen in the recent Ontario decision of Cicada 137 LLC v. Medjedovic (“Cicada”),^[1] mechanisms by which legal enforcement principles can be effectively applied against stolen or misappropriated crypto-assets are constrained.

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

Historically, an assignment of claims pursuant to s. 38 of Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”)[1] has only been used in the context of an assignment in bankruptcy. For instance, the use of s.

In its most recent decision, Chandos Construction Ltd v Deloitte Restructuring Inc.[1], the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) reaffirmed the existence of the common law anti-deprivation rule in Canada.

On July 27, 2020, the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court (the “Court”) released its decision in Great North Data Ltd., (Re),[1] where Justice Handrigan outlined principles for courts to consider when exercising their power under section 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.

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