The High Court has handed down judgment against two former directors of a number of BHS group companies. The Joint Liquidators, Anthony Wright and Geoffrey Rowley (both of FRP Advisory) brought claims against Lennart Henningson and Dominic Chandler for wrongful trading, misfeasance trading and individual misfeasance.

Wrongful trading

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.

TODAY, THE EAGERLY-AWAITED JUDGMENT HAS BEEN HANDED DOWN BY MR JUSTICE ZACAROLI IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS MADE BY OFFICE-HOLDERS OF A NUMBER OF FAILED ENERGY SUPPLIERS. 

The impact of this judgment will be felt much wider than just within the applicants' insolvent estates and it is relevant to any office-holder or unsecured creditor of a failed energy supplier.

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:

On 12 May 2021 the FCA issued finalised guidance for insolvency practitioners who are tasked with managing insolvencies of regulated firms.

Aiming to help insolvency practitioners understand how to deal with firms in line with FCA requirements, the guidance covers the process from end-to-end including expectations in the pre-insolvency stage and specific procedures relating to insolvencies and restructuring. The aim of the guidance is to assist with the minimising of the impact of a failure of a regulated firm

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

Questions and answers on the effect of the part A1 moratorium to be introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 from a Lender's perspective.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) was enacted on 26 June 2020 and includes measures both as a response to COVID-19, which apply temporarily, and measures which apply permanently, part of a long-planned package of insolvency reform measures.

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.