Hungarian insolvency law already knows the concept of avoidance actions. Allowing creditors and liquidators to challenge certain transactions aims to protect the value of the insolvency estate. Although the principles of Hungarian insolvency law are the same as those outlined in the European Commission's proposal for a Directive (i.e. Proposed Directive), there are some aspects which would need to be carefully thought through before they are harmonised.

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.

Emergency legislation has introduced important changes to Hungarian insolvency laws that allow the debtor’s business to keep trading during insolvency.

The new rules apply to those debtors who are considered strategically important to the Hungarian economy and to those whose insolvency is declared under other emergency rules.

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:

Hungary has passed an Act that implements EU Directive 2019/1023 on preventive restructuring frameworks, the discharge of debt and disqualifications, and on measures to increase the efficiency of procedures concerning restructuring, insolvency and discharge of debt (amending EU Directive 2017/1132). This new Act was published in Hungary's Official Gazette on 3 June 2021 and will come into force on 1 July 2022.

The Hungarian government has recently introduced a new restructuring tool with the aim of supporting companies suffering from financial difficulties due to COVID-19.

Financially distressed companies will receive an automatic stay while the company puts together a reorganisation plan, which will be supervised by a court and evaluated by a court-appointed expert.

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 Hungarian National Bank (MNB) has issued its updated management circular for the treatment of outstanding loans affected by legislative moratoria.

In line with the European Banking Authority (EBA) position, the MNB states that it not necessary to automatically qualify a customer loan as being defaulted or restructured (and thus the creation of higher provisions is not necessary) if the loan fell under the Hungarian legislative moratoria for up to nine months prior to the expiry date of the second moratorium on 30 June 2021.

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