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.

In life (as in business), as Heraclitus said, “the only constant is change.” In today’s fast-paced economy, this axiom should be kept in mind during contract negotiations, especially in a bear market.

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:

In bankruptcy as in federal jurisprudence generally, to characterize something with the near-epithet of “federal common law” virtually dooms it to rejection.

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

In January 2020 we reported that, after the reconsideration suggested by two Supreme Court justices and revisions to account for the Supreme Court’s Merit Management decision,[1] the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stood by its origina

Op 12 november 2020 heeft de Tweede Kamer het wetsvoorstel tot wijziging van de Tijdelijke wet COVID-19 SZW en JenV (35557) als hamerstuk aangenomen. Vandaag, 24 november 2020, is het wetsvoorstel ook door de Eerste Kamer als hamerstuk afgedaan. Het wetvoorstel maakt het mogelijk (in Hoofdstuk 2 Tijdelijke voorziening betalingsuitstel COVID-19) om de rechter te verzoeken:

A legislative proposal to amend the Temporary Act COVID-19 was adopted by the Dutch parliament on 12 November 2020, and adopted by the Dutch Senate on 24 November 2020. The proposal (the COVID-19 Amendment Act) will enter into force shortly and remain in effect until 1 February 2021. This GT Alert summarizes the measures included in COVID-19 Amendment Act Chapter 2 (Temporary measures for the stay on recovery measures COVID-19).

The COVID-19 Amendment Act provides (in Chapter 2) for the possibility of the debtor requesting that the courts, in connection with the pandemic:

It seems to be a common misunderstanding, even among lawyers who are not bankruptcy lawyers, that litigation in federal bankruptcy court consists largely or even exclusively of disputes about the avoidance of transactions as preferential or fraudulent, the allowance of claims and the confirmation of plans of reorganization. However, with a jurisdictional reach that encompasses “all civil proceedings . . .