Reform of our Australian bankruptcy landscape has been the focus of policymakers for some time. The new changes lead by the Attorney-General’s Department, will see the implementation of reforms to the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Bankruptcy Law Reforms) and further consultation on a Minimal Asset Procedure (as foreshadowed during our recent Personal Insolvency Forum) (Minimal Asset Procedure). A further development regarding the treatment of capital gains tax (CGT) is included in this update.

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 Court at first instance held that the Applicants failed to establish that the Company was insolvent. The key findings that informed the Associate Judge’s conclusions included the following:

• the funds that were available to the Company to pay its debts included funds in an offset account in the name of the director (and an account in the name of the director’s wife); and
• the Applicants’ claims were based on unreconciled accounts of the Company.

The Applicants were granted leave to appeal and appealed the decision of the Court a quo.

The Federal Court has clarified the ability of an assignee of a claim by a liquidator pursuant to s 100-5 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule to rely upon information and documents obtained from a public examination in private proceedings relating to the assigned claim: LCM Operations Pty Ltd, in the matter of 316 Group Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2021] FCA 324.

Takeaways:

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

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.

It is unresolved whether a creditor can rely upon a section 553C set-off under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to reduce an unfair preference claim. Until the controversy is resolved by a binding court decision, liquidators and creditors will continue to adopt opposing positions.