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.

在各类跨境投资的项目中，投资人最担心的问题莫过于被投企业的财务状况出现困境，影响其持续经营能力和偿债能力并最终演变为债务危机，或者集团的持股结构、治理结构不够透明，各种交叉持股盘根错节。在重组过程中，投资者可能会帮助公司梳理、调整各种投资主体架构，而企业为了解除投资者顾虑，有时也会主动进行投资主体架构的重组和优化，包括把多余的主体和结构层级精简掉。

在跨境投资的架构中，往往涉及到多层持股架构，开曼公司、BVI公司以及香港公司都是常见的持股主体。如果我们在重组中需要把这些主体精简注销，需要走什么样的程序，复杂不复杂？在本文中，我们将与大家分享开曼豁免有限公司的清盘和解散，并且后续文章中陆续与大家分享其他法域主体的清算和注销。

系列导语

在各类跨境投资的项目中，投资人最担心的问题莫过于被投企业的财务状况出现困境，进而影响其持续经营能力和偿债能力并最终演变为债务危机。这些投资人可能是企业公募或私募债券的持有人、享有抵押品的银团放贷机构、各类融资架构中的夹层债权人，或是享受回购权或强制出售权的权益投资人。

跨境投资项目下的债务重组，往往会涉及多法域下的复杂法律问题、救济方式和司法程序。特别是在典型的境外持股架构下，当开曼公司作为境外母公司出现债务危机时，如何通过BVI及香港子公司逐级下沉债权人的风控或增信机制，如何衔接和落地相关境内外救济措施，如何最终帮助债权人控制或取得境内子公司的资产或其提供的担保品或抵押品，这些问题的妥善解决是债务重组成功的关键。这要求参与跨境债务重组项目的专业执行团队具有跨市场和跨国界的运作能力、多法域的法律和司法实操经验、高效的项目管理能力以及深刻的风险认知和风险反制筹划能力。由于各个法域下的质权之设立、优先顺位和有效性对于债权人和质押权人来说至关重要，加强对主要离岸法域对质押行为的程序性规定和质权有效性的判定认识能有效地防范潜在的交易风险。

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

Section 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that accrued employee entitlements must be paid in priority to the holder of a circulating security interest in a winding up.

Until recently, it was unresolved whether the property subject to a circulating security interest should be determined as at the date the liquidation began, on a continuous basis, or at some other unidentified date.

It is unresolved whether a creditor can rely upon a section 553C set-off under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to reduce an unfair preference claim. Until the controversy is resolved by a binding court decision, liquidators and creditors will continue to adopt opposing positions.

A company in liquidation served a creditor’s statutory demand for debt where there was a genuine dispute about the existence of the alleged debt. The statutory demand was set aside by the Court and the liquidators were ordered to personally pay costs on an indemnity basis.

What happened

In SJG Developments Pty Limited v NT Two Nominees Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2020] QSC 104: