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.

Introduction

The first stage in any restructuring by way of a scheme of arrangement in the Cayman Islands involves meetings of such classes of creditors or shareholders (as the case may be) to consider, and if thought fit, approve the terms of the scheme. An application to Court is required for orders to be granted for convening such meetings. If, at these meetings, the requisite statutory majorities are satisfied, the second stage involves obtaining Court sanction for the proposed scheme to become effective.

Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands all have legislation that enables a company to present a scheme of arrangement to restructure its debts.

One of the defining features of a scheme of arrangement carried out under the relevant legislation in each jurisdiction is the ability to cram down dissenting creditors or members (or classes of them, as the case may be) if the requisite statutory majorities are satisfied and Court sanction of the proposed scheme is obtained.

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.

A recent judgment of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Brake & Anor v The Chedington Court Estate Ltd [2023] UKSC 29 (10 August 2023) is likely to be a welcome decision for liquidators and trustees in bankruptcy in setting clear boundaries as to who has standing to challenge their decision-making in corporate or personal insolvency contexts.

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.