New rules in the UK allow Companies House to share non-public information with insolvency officeholders and the Official Receiver.

While in many cases there may be limited non-public information available from Companies House that will be useful to insolvency officeholders, this is another tool available to deploy in appropriate cases. It is specifically envisaged to assist officeholders pursuing claims for fraudulent and wrongful trading, transactions at an undervalue and preferences.

Following a series of important decisions in England and across Europe, it is now beyond doubt that court-based restructuring processes should be approached from the outset as pieces of litigation.

We have seen increasingly sophisticated challenges to restructurings, which the courts are willing to accommodate. In appropriate cases, the courts have also refused to sanction restructurings.

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 16 May 2023, Mr Justice Adam Johnson in the High Court refused to sanction the restructuring plan proposed by The Great Annual Savings Company Limited (GAS) following objections from HMRC.

On 30 March 2022, the English court sanctioned the most recent restructuring plan proposed by Smile Telecoms Holdings Limited (Smile).

A recent England and Wales High Court decision demonstrates the increasingly litigious nature of Court-supervised restructuring processes. It also addresses the Court’s approach to whether foreign recognition risks represent a ‘blot’ on a proposed scheme of arrangement so that the Court should decline sanction ('the recognition/blot question').

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

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