A recent Western Australia decision in the receivership and liquidation of a construction company may have overturned the hitherto accepted view that set-off remains effective against a receiver.

The case in question could cost the principal tens of millions of dollars and is under appeal. The finding is potentially relevant in New Zealand because the provisions relied on are materially identical to those in our Companies Act and Personal Property Securities Act (PPSA).

Failing to register security interests on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) - a simple and straightforward exercise - can be costly.

This was amply demonstrated recently when General Electric's attempt to argue that its $60 million wind turbines were exempt from the operation of the Personal Property Securities Act (PPSA) was rejected by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The case

The first significant decision¹ under the Australian Personal Properties Securities Act 2009 has followed New Zealand and Canadian law.

The case involved competing claims by a general security holder and a lessor to three civil construction vehicles located in the Northern Territory.

The relationship between the parties

​Direct deeds provide limited protection for contractors.

This is the effect of the judgment arising from what is believed to be the first use of the voidable transactions regime to challenge a payment made under a direct deed.

What are direct deeds?

Liquidators are not limited to the procedure set out in section 295 of the Companies Act to recover a debt once an insolvent transaction has been set aside. 

Two court judgments which could significantly affect New Zealand’s insolvent transactions regime are due out soon.  When they are released, we will provide a Hothouse seminar on their potential implications for creditors and liquidators (sign up here). 

We discuss the cases briefly here and provide an overview of the current liquidation “market” based on information supplied by the Companies Office.

The Supreme Court has today considerably expanded the “good faith” defence for voidable transactions. 

Where a creditor “gave value” through the original transaction, that creditor can now defeat a voidable transaction claim by proving only that it acted in good faith, with no suspicion of insolvency. 

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that if a secured creditor votes its secured debt in a liquidation meeting, the vote is invalid – and the security remains. 

Liquidation meetings are for unsecured creditors.  A secured creditor has no vote, except in respect of debt that is unsecured.

The case

A bankrupt’s KiwiSaver account balance is off limits to the Official Assignee.  Even if it were not, the Official Assignee could not use the bankruptcy to invoke the hardship-based early withdrawal provisions in the KiwiSaver Act 2006.

This is the effect of a Court of Appeal judgment, delivered on Friday.  Although justifiable in policy terms, the decision raises issues about the appropriate balance between promoting retirement savings and protecting creditor rights. 

Significance

The High Court has found that a bankrupt member’s interest in a KiwiSaver scheme is available for distribution by the Official Assignee to creditors – but only after the bankrupt qualifies for a withdrawal (which will usually be at age 65) unless early partial release would alleviate the bankrupt’s significant financial hardship.