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.

The characterisation of a charge as fixed or floating can have significant ramifications for the chargee on chargor’s insolvency. This is because the holder of a fixed charge enjoys significant advantage, in terms of the order of priority of distributions to creditors, over a floating charge holder.

The English Court has refused to sanction two separate restructuring plans proposed by Nasmyth Group Limited (Nasmyth) and The Great Annual Savings Company Ltd (GAS). Both companies sought to use Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 to “cram down” His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC). Whilst neither decision is the first time that Part 26A has been used in this way¹, they are the first to involve any active participation by HMRC in the sanction hearing².

The UK Government has announced changes to the regime for winding-up petitions. With effect from 1 October 2021, some of the protections currently afforded to businesses against aggressive debt recovery action are being phased out.

The changes are intended to avoid a 'cliff edge' for debtor companies when the current measures lapse at the end of September 2021, and have a tapering effect to avoid the flood of winding-up petitions that might otherwise be expected.

What are the current restrictions (in place until 30 September 2021)?

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:

A week is often described as a long time in politics, and so also (it seems) with the restructuring market.

Last week, we saw significant strides forward with:

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 UK Restructuring Plan took its first foray down the well-trodden path of lease restructuring over the last week. The Restructuring Plan has been used through to court sanction in five cases so far: however, none has sought to compromise landlord claims, the preferred tool for which has until now been the CVA.

The new Part 26A Companies Act Restructuring Plan procedure, dubbed the “Super Scheme”, (summarised here) was gathering pace in the English courts since its introduction in June last year. Last week’s judgment in gategroup presents a potential speed bump in terms of its implementation as the restructuring tool of choice in European cross-border restructurings.