Ordinarily, a company entering liquidation is considered the commercial equivalent of “game over”, “checkmate”, “the end”, “K.O” or whatever other synonyms creditors can conjure up. This would be true for the most part because, at the end of the liquidation process, the company is usually deregistered and ceases to exist.

However, in some cases it is possible for the liquidator, a creditor or a “contributory” (member) of the company to apply to the Court for an order terminating the winding up. If made, this would return control of the company to the directors.

The statutory demand is a formidable card up a creditor’s sleeve that can result in a company being deemed to be insolvent if it does not pay the creditor’s debt within 21 days of service of the demand. Whether a statutory demand served on an incorporated body other than an Australian company will be effective largely depends on the State or Territory in which the incorporated body is based and whether it is served pursuant to the correct section of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).

What is a statutory demand?

On 24 August 2017, Messrs Park, Olde and Hansell were appointed joint and several administrators of SurfStitch Group Limited. Prior to their appointment, two shareholder class actions were commenced against SurfStitch. The administrators identified 3,313 shareholders who may be potential group members in the class actions.

Summary

It may now be easier for Australian insolvency practitioners to carry out investigations and recover assets located in Hong Kong and in mainland China. On 8 February 2018, and for the first time, the High Court of Hong Kong granted an application for recognition and assistance in that jurisdiction for voluntary liquidators of an entity incorporated in the British Virgin Islands.

The High Court will consider the validity of “holding” deed of company arrangements (commonly known as “holding DOCAs”) under the Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act (theAct).

Justice R. Graesser of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Court) recently released his decision in Royal Bank of Canada v.Reid-Built Homes Ltd. (Decision), where he held that the Court has the discretion, but not the obligation, to grant a super priority for receivers’ fees and disbursements ahead of the claims of secured creditors.

This is the third instalment in a series examining large retail insolvencies in Canada from the perspective of various stakeholders. This article discusses insolvencies from the perspective of corporate parents of distressed Canadian retailers.

Jurisprudence canadienne récente en matière d’insolvabilité : ce que les prêteurs doivent savoir Linc Rogers, Caitlin McIntyre et Ilia Kravtsov L’issue d’un certain nombre de dossiers d’insolvabilité portés devant les tribunaux de diverses provinces du Canada en 2017 pourrait avoir une incidence importante sur les droits de réalisation et de recouvrement des prêteurs commerciaux dans le cadre de procédures de restructuration et d’insolvabilité.

Alberta Energy has increasingly been targeting insolvent lessees and the historical gas cost allowances claimed by those insolvent companies.

Alberta Energy deducts allowances for capital and operating costs and custom processing fees incurred and paid in Alberta for compressing, gathering and processing its royalty share of gas and gas products through the Crown share of allowable costs. Accordingly, there are three allowances available from the Crown: capital cost, operating cost and custom processing fee allowance.