Overview

In the recent decision of Invico Diversified Income Limited Partnership v NewGrange Energy Inc, 2024 ABKB 214 (“NewGrange”), the Alberta Court of King’s Bench clarified when gross overriding royalties (“GOR”) can be vested out of a debtor company’s estate pursuant to a reverse vesting order (“RVO”). The Court allowed GORs to be vested off under the Applicant’s, Invico Diversified Income Limited Partnership (“Invico”), proposed RVO, finding the GORs to be mere contractual rights and not proper interests in land.

Case Trends

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.

The recent decision from the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta (the “Court”) in Qualex-Landmark Towers Inc v 12-1- Capital Corp, 2023 ABKB 109 (“Qualex”) greatly extended the protective umbrella for costs associated with environmental reclamation obligations.

In Golfside Ventures Ltd (Re) (2023 ABKB 86) the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta (the “Court”) reaffirmed the Court’s authority to exercise inherent jurisdiction in proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) in circumstances where (1) the BIA is silent or has not dealt with a matter exhaustively; and (2) the benefit of granting the relief outweighs th

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.