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.

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

The case in question is CIMB Bank Bhd v. World Fuel Services (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 19. The decision was delivered on 5 March 2021 by the Singapore Court of Appeal.

The judgment addresses issues surrounding claims by a bank under assignments and other security documents over rights in and receivables under commodities supply contracts, and overturns the Singapore High Court decision in CIMB Bank Bhd v. World Fuel Services (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2020] SGHC 117.

Summary

On 12 August 2020, we wrote about three important judicial decisions of the courts in England and Singapore relating to the enforcement of arbitration agreements over claims arising under insolvency laws.

The increasing number of high-profile bankruptcies across a number of commercial hubs has brought renewed focus on important questions of jurisdiction arising out of the tension between local insolvency regimes on the one hand, and parties’ arbitration agreements on the other.

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

Recent insolvencies remind us that, when a seller of goods is unpaid, the question of possession leaps to the foreground. There is little value in a claim against an insolvent buyer for damages or for the price.

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.