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 Royal Court has recently handed down the final decision in the matter of Eagle Holdings Limited (in compulsory liquidation).[1] In this decision, the Royal Court of Guernsey provided guidance and assistance to the joint liquidators regarding a distribution of surplus funds.
Introduction
Meetings of creditors and shareholders
Reporting delinquent officers
Declaration of solvency
Disclaiming onerous property
Comment
Historically, Guernsey's insolvency law had limited operational provisions (compared to English law) and was largely developed by a bespoke and flexible application of common and customary law principles by the Royal Court. The old regime will now be updated and revised by the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (Insolvency) (Amendment) Ordinance 2020 (Ordinance) which was passed on 15 January 2020. Although it does not yet have force of law it is anticipated to become law in the latter part of this year.
There has been much discussion concerning the recent district court appellate decision in Purdue Pharma. See In re Purdue Pharma, Case No. 21 cv 7532 (Master Case), 2021 WL 5979108 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2021). We have been tracking developments relating to Purdue Pharma and issues concerning third-party releases: Purdue Pharma: Is Protection of Third Parties by the Automatic Stay an Oxymoron?
On May 7, 2021, we issued a legal alert regarding third-party releases as part of the plan of reorganization in the Perdue Pharma case. [Purdue Pharma: Is Protection of Third Parties by the Automatic Stay an Oxymoron?] The order confirming that plan was appealed and our subsequent legal alert dated December 21, 2021 discussed the decision by Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S.
On May 7, 2021, we issued a client alert regarding the Perdue Pharma case and the possibility that the bankruptcy case could include a release of individual non-debtor members of the Sackler family. At that time, a plan which contained terms that would effectively extend the automatic stay protections was confirmed by Judge Robert D. Drain, who presided over the bankruptcy case in the Southern District of New York.
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and in 2020 alone, approximately 7,300 companies filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.[1] Of those, forty-two awarded pre-bankruptcy retention bonuses to 223 executives, totaling approximately $165 million.[2] These p
Each day creditors across the globe receive the bad news that a customer is not paying its debts or is otherwise insolvent. Israeli creditors, whether lenders or vendors, are no exception. Knowing what to do can limit exposure and maximize recovery of debts owed by the insolvent party.