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.

Background

On 5 October 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25 concerning the trigger point at which directors must have regard to the interests of creditors pursuant to s.172(3) of the Companies Act 2006 (the "creditors' interests duty").

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

Today, new legislation comes into force* that provides directors of companies in financial difficulty with a second breathing space from the financial impact of the wrongful trading provisions.

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

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 introduces a temporary, retrospective suspension of the directors' personal financial liability for wrongful trading from 1 March 2020 until 30 September 2020. This is not a blanket defence to a breach of duty by directors, since the directors' general duties to act in the best interests of the company (or, on insolvency, its creditors),will continue to apply.

On 26 June the long-awaited Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 came into force and introduced emergency measures to provide protection to directors of companies which continue to trade notwithstanding the threat of insolvency, and to prevent, where possible, companies entering into insolvency due to COVID-19.

On 26 June, the long-awaited Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 became law providing the UK (but with separate provisions for Northern Ireland) with temporary and permanent changes to insolvency law aimed at helping businesses manage the economic implications of COVID-19 including:

Permanent measures