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.

In March 2019, Liquidators were appointed to The Australian Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd (TASCO) by way of a creditors’ voluntary winding up. TASCO owned a large lot of contaminated land – there were stockpiles of construction and demolition waste resulting from a former licensee conducting a materials recycling business.

Section 440A(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) requires the Court to adjourn a winding up application if it is satisfied that it would be in the best interest of creditors for the company to continue under administration rather than be wound up.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent case where the Supreme Court of Queensland rejected a director’s application to access an executory contract of sale entered into by receivers and managers on the basis it was not a ‘financial record’

Key Takeaways

In Re Dessco Pty Ltd, the Victorian Supreme Court adjourned a winding up application for 50 days to allow time for creditors to vote on a restructuring plan.

Whilst the adjournment was opposed by the Plaintiff, the Judicial Registrar of the Court accepted the assessment formed by the Small Business Restructuring Practitioner that the company was eligible to avail itself of the new regime having regard to the criteria that must be satisfied (and the ‘just estimate’ approach adopted in respect of contingent liabilities) and the interests of the company’s creditors.

This week’s TGIF looks at the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Donoghue v Russells (A Firm)[2021] FCA 798 in which Mr Donoghue appealed a decision to make a sequestration order which was premised on him ‘carrying on business in Australia' for the purpose of section 43(1)(b)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Act).

Key Takeaways

In the matter of Western Port holdings Pty Ltd (receivers and managers appointed)(in liq) [2021] NSWSC 232, Deed Administrators who were subsequently appointed Liquidators of Western Port Holdings Pty Ltd (the Company) clawed back over $2 million worth of payments made to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) whilst the Company was subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA).

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 ACN 004 410 833 Ltd (formerly Arrium Limited) (in liq) v Michael Thomas Walton & anor,^[1] the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered the purpose for which public examination summons and production of documents can be ordered.