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.

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

The race to vaccinate Americans is likely to bring an end to the pandemic in the months ahead, but the outlook for the U.S. economy is far less certain. On Friday, the Federal Reserve Board delivered its Monetary Policy Report to Congress. While providing statistics suggesting that U.S. businesses could rebound when the pandemic ends, the report noted significant risks of business bankruptcies as well as a steep drop in commercial real estate prices.

The torrid pace of bankruptcy filings by U.S. businesses has ebbs and flows, but the tide is not receding. The economy continues to struggle under the weight of the COVID-19 pandemic.

There has not been any substantial change in the fundamentals of the business cycle and Washington has been unable to produce another round of stimuli. So, we need to be careful about drawing conclusions from any short term variance in the rate of bankruptcy filings.

Since the end of the first quarter of 2020, bankruptcy professionals have been planning for a substantial increase in business bankruptcies. The newest statistics tell us that the wait is over. These bankruptcy filings follow the sustained economic contraction rooted in the COVID pandemic. But it would be too simplistic to say that COVID is the sole cause of this trend. Most of the businesses that have filed faced other challenges, such as heavy debt burdens, deteriorating markets or strategic missteps.

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 number of so-called mega-bankruptcies filed during the first half of the year tells only part of the story. The pain is not just at the top, but spreads across multiple sectors of the economy. Overall, business bankruptcy filings are 30% higher than they have been at any time during the last 5 years. And, with attempts to re-start the economy already sputtering, the news during the second half could be worse.

Section 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that accrued employee entitlements must be paid in priority to the holder of a circulating security interest in a winding up.

Until recently, it was unresolved whether the property subject to a circulating security interest should be determined as at the date the liquidation began, on a continuous basis, or at some other unidentified date.