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.

Introduction

Introduction

After much anticipation, the UK Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25 - and has authoritatively set the baseline for how directors’ duties evolve as regards shareholders and creditors’ interests when a company is in the zone of insolvency.

Background

The full strength of the economic headwinds facing the UK economy is not yet clear, but a helpful recent report by insolvency and restructuring adviser Begbies Traynor provided some useful numbers around the attitudes of businesses.

The impact of Covid-19 is clearly the big talking point for 2022, with several questions arising: will new variants emerge, what steps will governments take to limit the spread, and what impact will it have on industries? To date, enforcement actions, insolvencies and restructurings have been relatively light, but with new restructuring legislation reforms on the horizon, and creditors starting to ramp up speed to enforcement, it appears likely that there will be an increase in winding up and cross-border restructuring work.

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