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 May 30, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit” or the “Court”) rendered a much anticipated opinion (the “Opinion”),¹ reversing the order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”) that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit non-consensual third-party releases of direct claims and affirming the order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the

On March 28, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “District Court”) rendered an opinion (the “Opinion”)¹ affirming the confirmation order of Laurie S.

On July 29, 2022, Laurie S.

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

It is common for E&P companies in chapter 11 to seek to reject burdensome midstream contracts under Bankruptcy Code § 365. Rejection has not been permitted by bankruptcy courts where such agreements create enforceable covenants running with the land (“CRWL”) because a CRWL is a real property interest of the midstream gatherer, not just a contract right. Accordingly, before a debtor can seek to reject midstream agreements, the bankruptcy court must first determine whether an enforceable CRWL exists.

On August 26, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed Delaware Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Carey’s order confirming the Tribune Company’s chapter 11 plan.¹ As a matter of first impression, the Court held that the prohibition against “unfair discrimination” in cramdown plans supplants the requirement that subordination agreements be enforced in bankruptcy. The decision comes more than eight years after Judge Carey initially entered the Bankruptcy Court order, and follows years of appeals by the senior noteholders.

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