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.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Upon an application for an administration order the court exercised its discretion and concluded that a winding up order was more appropriate. The court was satisfied that the Respondent company was insolvent but could not see why administration would fulfil one of the statutory purposes.

Re Aartee Steel Group Ltd [2023] EWHC 1701 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

We are (or were!) emerging from nearly two years of restrictions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic which forced people to stay at home and businesses to close causing shock waves throughout the economy. The government put in place the package of emergency measures and support which we are now all too familiar with. However, the question always lingered, what next? What about when the money runs out?

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:

AML changes for court-appointed liquidators

Important changes for court-appointed liquidators to the regulations under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 (Act) will come into force on 9 July 2021.  These changes provide that, for a court-appointed liquidator:

These case summaries first appeared in LexisNexis’ Insolvency Case Alerter. They represent some of the more interesting insolvency decisions to have been published recently.

This summary covers:

1.Re PGH Investments Ltd [2021] EWHC 533 (Ch)

2.Re Mederco (Cardiff) Ltd [2021] EWHC 386 (Ch)

3.Lyle v Bedborough [2021] EWHC 220 (Ch)

4.Re TXU Ltd, Insolvency and Companies Court, 2 March 2021

5.Re Port Finance Investment Ltd [2021] EWHC 378 (Ch)

The High Court has released its judgment in Re Halifax NZ Limited (In liq) [2021] NZHC 113, involving a unique contemporaneous sitting of the High Court of New Zealand and Federal Court of Australia.

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 real lesson from Debut Homes – don't stiff the tax (wo)man

The Supreme Court has overturned the 2019 Court of Appeal decision Cooper v Debut Homes Limited (in liquidation) [2019] NZCA 39 and restored the orders made by the earlier High Court decision, reminding directors that the broad duties under the Companies Act require consideration of the interests of all creditors, and not just a select group. This is the first time New Zealand’s highest court has considered sections 131, 135 and 136 of the Companies Act, making this a significant decision.