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.

Voyager Aviation Holdings, LLC (Voyager) is a privately held aircraft owner and lessor with approximately $2 billion in assets. Voyager is headquartered in Dublin and has offices in Stamford, Connecticut.

Earlier this year, A&L Goodbody LLP advised Voyager on the successful restructuring of its senior note obligations.1 The restructuring was implemented by way of a US exchange offer that simultaneously solicited support for both a "plan B" Irish scheme of arrangement and a "plan C" prepack US Chapter 11.

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:

Earlier today, 26 May 2021, the final condition to the restructuring plan for the Norwegian Air Shuttle group was met, allowing the Examiner’s scheme to become effective: confirmation that the business has successfully raised 6bn NOK.

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 21 July 2020 the Irish High Court approved a scheme of arrangement for the world's largest regional aircraft lessor Nordic Aviation Capital DAC (Nordic).

The scheme, which included a 12-month standstill and deferral of c. US$5 billion of secured and unsecured debt, was a market-first for the aircraft leasing industry and has been watched closely by others in the sector.

The Irish scheme had a number of innovative features:

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

On 21 July 2020, the Irish High Court approved a scheme of arrangement for the world’s largest regional aircraft lessor Nordic Aviation Capital DAC (NAC).

The scheme, which included a 12-month standstill and deferral of c. US$5bn of secured and unsecured debt, is a market-first for the aircraft leasing industry in Ireland whose customer base has been seriously impacted by COVID-19. We look at the NAC scheme of arrangement and consider whether it is a viable restructuring option for the aviation sector more generally.

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.