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.
Currently, the British Virgin Islands has no legislative framework for regulating third party litigation funding. Until recently, the absence of such a framework led many to believe that the rules against maintenance and champerty still operated so as in practice to prevent litigants from raising funds from third parties to prosecute or to defend claims. In Crumpler v Exential Investments Inc (BVIHC(COM) 2020/0081; 29 September 2020) Jack J clarified that third party funding arrangements were enforceable in the BVI.
Facts
Insolvency Act 2003
Comment
In the Three Arrows case,(1) the BVI Court has endorsed what is believed to be its first extra-territorial order summoning directors of a BVI company (in liquidation) to appear for private examination by joint liquidators.
Introduction
Where a British Virgin Islands company is struck off the register, its directors and members cannot carry on the company's affairs, commence or defend legal proceedings in the name of the company, or deal with the assets of the company.
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