Statutory demands can be issued by a creditor to a debtor company to demand payment of a debt due and owing. Failure to respond to the demand may result in the debtor company facing a winding-up application based on the company’s presumed insolvency.

However, there are several avenues available to a debtor company to apply for a court order setting aside a demand. The most common grounds are found in section 459H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), where a company can claim:

If a debtor company receives a statutory demand, it has 21 days to file an application (along with a supporting affidavit) with the Court to set aside that statutory demand. The Court may set aside this statutory demand if:

BVI UPDATES 1. Changes to FSC fees The Financial Services (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations, 2023 came into force on 1 April 2023, with the exception of fees relating to the virtual asset services provider regime which came into force on 1 February 2023.

The Honourable Justice Black of the NSW Supreme Court has ruled on an application pursuant to s90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) involving the complex interplay between s556 and s561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act).

Originally published in the March 2023 issue of the Australian Restructuring & Turnaround Association Journal (ARITA), this article explores the interaction of statutory set‑off and unfair preference claims through its legislative origins, historical application and consideration by the courts, before discussing the High Court’s recent judgment and concluding with key takeaways for insolve

It is widely anticipated that the next twelve months could be a challenging period for many businesses in the UK and that there could be a significant rise in the number of companies in financial distress.

Where this is the case, the directors of those companies will need to be increasingly mindful of the duties they have to the company's creditors, as well as to its shareholders.

Introductie

In het eerste kwartaal van 2023 zijn op www.rechtspraak.nl verschillende uitspraken gepubliceerd waarin de ingestelde vordering gegrond was op bestuurdersaansprakelijkheid.

In deze Kwartaalupdate Bestuurdersaansprakelijkheid voor Q1 2023 is een selectie gemaakt uit deze uitspraken. De navolgende onderwerpen komen aan bod:

01. Feitelijk bestuurder wanneer is sprake van `terzijde stellen van het bestuur'? (Hoge Raad 24 maart 2023) 2

02. Schending boekhoudplicht, niet slechts bij ontbreken van administratie (Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch 10 januari 2023)5

Sometimes a debtor is liable for fraud that she did not personally commit,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 22, 2023, when the debtor’s business partner had deceptively obtained money by fraud, thereby making the innocent partner liable for a nondischargeable debt under Bankruptcy Code (Code) §523(a)(2)(A) (“any debt from money “obtained by … fraud” not dischargeable and survives debtor’s bankruptcy). Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, 2023 WL 2144417 (Feb. 22, 2023).

1 2023 年 4 月 破産管財人による債務の承認と消滅時効の関係 ―別除権者との交渉過程等での債務承認に 消滅時効の中断の効力を認めた最新判例― 弁護士 関端 広輝/ 弁護士 片山 いずみ Ⅰ．破産手続開始後における被担保債権の回収 1．破産手続における担保権の取扱い（別除権） 破産法上、破産債権（破産法 2 条 5 項。破産者に対し破産手続開始前の原因に基づいて生じた財産上の請 求権であって、財団債権に該当しないもの。）は、破産手続によらなければ権利行使ができないことが原則とされ ています（同法 100 条、42 条 1 項・同条 2 項）。つまり、破産債権を有する債権者は、基本的には、破産手続 に従って配当を受けることしかできません。しかし、その例外の 1 つとされるのが「別除権」です。 FINANCIAL RESTRUCTURING GROUP NEWSLETTER 破産手続が開始された者の所有財産に担保権が設定されている場合、担保権者は、通常、自身の 有する被担保債権について、当該担保目的物からの回収を試みることになります。 そして、破産手続において破産管財人が選任されていれば、当該担保目的物の処遇や被担保債権 の回収に関し、担保権者が問い合わせや交渉等を行う相手は、当該破産管財人となります。

Current economic conditions and market instability are likely to see more Australian companies fall into distress in 2023 — creating both opportunities for proactive restructuring as well as distressed asset sales.

That's one of the predictions in this year's edition of From Red to Black, Clayton Utz's annual review of the dynamics of Australia's Restructuring and Insolvency (R&I) market.