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.
"Bulgaria transposed the Restructuring Directive's prohibition to terminate contracts via ipso facto clauses, but also (deviating from the Directive) prohibited contractual set-off in restructuring, thus rendering the preservation of many contracts performed via contractual set-off / netting of payment meaningless. So, in drafting ipso facto clauses the impossibility to perform contracts in restructuring, due to the contractual set-off prohibition, may be utilised as an additional trigger for termination, now".
The Supreme Court confirmed parties' freedom to contractually modify any of the prerequisites for set-off under Bulgarian law, thus permitting various quasi-security arrangements in commercial and financial contracts that creditors may avail themselves of.
Prerequisites for statutory set-off in Bulgaria
So far, the Bulgarian economy has encountered various COVID-19-related effects, but a surge in insolvencies is not yet one of them. Although the Bulgarian state was slow in implementing measures to help companies affected by the pandemic – which measures turned out to be insufficient – there has been no visible increase in bankruptcy proceedings since 2020.
Editorial | Restructuring Directive
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
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
Section 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that accrued employee entitlements must be paid in priority to the holder of a circulating security interest in a winding up.
Until recently, it was unresolved whether the property subject to a circulating security interest should be determined as at the date the liquidation began, on a continuous basis, or at some other unidentified date.