It is well known that a company served with a statutory demand has 21 days to comply. If the recipient fails to pay the amount of the demand (or obtain a court order extending the period for compliance) within the period of 21 days after the demand is served, the creditor may rely on the failure as a basis to apply for the company to be wound up in insolvency. But what if the company pays, or seeks to pay, the amount of the statutory demand after the 21 day period has expired?

Like many areas of insolvency law, statutory demands have strict procedural requirements as to the timing by which documents must be served. But how is the passage of time calculated? If something is required to be done "21 days after" a document is served, is this intended to be inclusive or exclusive of the day the document was served? The Supreme Court of NSW recently grappled with this issue in Verimark Pty Ltd v Passiontree Velvet Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 455 and has provided clarity for lawyers and insolvency practitioners alike.

The decision of the High Court of Australia in Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd v Compton [2017] HCA 28; 261 CLR 132 (Ramsay) clarified the limits of a Bankruptcy Court's discretion to "go behind" a judgment, that is, to investigate whether the underlying debt relied upon for the making of a sequestration order is, in truth and reality, owing to the petitioning creditor. Recently, the Ramsay decision was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Dunkerley v Comcare [2019] FCA 1002 (Dunkerley).

On 19 June 2019, the much-anticipated High Court appeal in the matter of Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [2019] HCA 20 (also known as the "Amerind appeal") was handed down.

Overview

The recent approval by the Irish High Court of a scheme of arrangement that restructured US$1.65bn of liabilities of Ballantyne Re plc (Ballantyne) confirms Dublin as one of the most effective restructuring venues in the EU. The detailed decision of Justice Barniville (available here) offers significant precedential value and is a clear endorsement that Irish schemes can be used to implement complex cross border restructurings. The Irish statute governing schemes is very similar to that of England and Wales.

Essence of the Ballantyne scheme:

Liquidators are encouraged to seek advice or directions from the Court as to the discharge of their responsibilities. But who bears the costs of such proceedings, of the liquidator and of any contradictor involved?

In the recent case of In the matter of Gondon Five Pty Limited and Cui Family Asset Management Pty Limited [2019] NSWSC 469, the New South Wales Supreme Court (Brereton J) considered the purpose and scope of an appointment as receiver to a company, and came down particularly hard on an insolvency practitioner for performing work and incurring expenses which were determined to be outside, or not incidental to, the scope of his appointment.

Background

The Federal Court of Australia in Kaboko Mining Limited v Van Heerden (No 3) [2018] FCA 2055 handed down a significant decision which clarified the operation of "insolvency exclusion" clauses in a D&O liability insurance policy. The issue arose after Administrators commenced proceedings against four former directors of the company, and the insurer relied on an insolvency exclusion to decline to indemnify the former directors in respect of the claims made in the proceedings.

The facts

Insolvency – every director’s biggest nightmare. Under the Corporations Act s 459C, when a creditor serves a statutory demand on a company for an outstanding debt, the company will be presumed insolvent if it fails to comply with, or set aside, the demand. But what happens when the creditor is also a director of the company? This was an issue recently considered by the Supreme Court of Queensland in Re CSSC (QLD) Pty Ltd [2018] QSC 282.

The facts

Cash flow is the life blood of the construction industry, goes the mantra. Construction projects often have long supply chains. When cash stops flowing down the chain, businesses can fail. There is all too much recent evidence of this.

Someone in the chain (say, a main contractor) could seek to provide in a contract that it does not have to pay the party below (subcontractor) until it has been paid by the party above (employer). This is a 'pay-when-paid' clause.