In brief

On 29 February 2024, the court of appeal will hear an appeal against an order for the insolvent liquidation of a company that unsuccessfully argued, at first instance, that the petitioning debt was subject to a dispute covered by contractual agreements to arbitrate. While the interplay between insolvency and arbitration is not a new issue, the upcoming hearing will be the first time after the court of final appeal's decision in Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9 ("Guy Lam") for the court of appeal to clarify the principles.

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.

On 27 May 2022, the Honorable Mr. Justice Harris sanctioned a scheme of arrangement introduced by Rare Earth Magnesium Technology Group Holdings Limited, which was incorporated in Bermuda, to restructure its debt. The Reasons for Decision handed down on 6 June 2022 contain detailed discussions on, among other things, the use of schemes in cross-border insolvencies.

In brief

On 6 May 2022, the Honorable Madam Justice Linda Chan granted a petition for the winding-up (in Hong Kong) of Up Energy Development Group Limited, which was incorporated in Bermuda.

In brief

On 14 May 2021, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) and the Hong Kong government agreed a framework (“Framework”) for judicial cooperation in corporate insolvency and debt restructuring. Under the Framework:

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:

In brief

On 14 May 2021, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) and the Hong Kong government agreed a framework (“Framework”) for judicial cooperation in corporate insolvency and debt restructuring.  Under the Framework:

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