The Supreme Court of New South Wales recently considered section 420A of the Corporations Act2001 (Cth) (the Act) in the context of a Receiver selling secured property without first advertising and offering the property for sale by auction.

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in Mighty River International Ltd v Hughes & Bredenkamp [2017] WASC 69 (Mighty River v Hughes) has confirmed the legality and the utility of ‘holding’ deeds of company arrangement (colloquially referred to as ‘Holding DOCAs’).

Hold what?

On 1 June 2017 a new law came into effect in New South Wales relevant to liquidators’ rights to directly pursue the insurer of a proposed defendant, taking away significant uncertainty which existed previously because of antiquated provisions in a 1946 act relating to charges over and priorities to those insurance monies.

The new law now provides greater certainty for liquidators in deciding whether to bring proceedings directly against the insurers of directors and officers or indeed of other third parties against whom the liquidators may have claims.

Justice Black in In the matter of Boart Longyear Limited[2017] NSWSC 537 has confirmed that section 411(16) of the Corporations Act 2011 (Cth) (the Act), can be used to provide companies proposing schemes of arrangement with appropriate protections from its creditors in a form that can be recognised under Chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code.

The Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) applies to security interests in personal property including, but not limited to:

The New South Wales Supreme Court has found that a secured party cannot rely on its own mistake when registering on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) to claim that the defective registration “temporarily perfects” its security interest.

The facts

Section 433 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) concerns the payment to employees as priority creditors by a receiver from the assets subject to a circulating security interest. The provision in large part mirrors the payment waterfall contained in section 556 that applies in a winding-up.

The Supreme Court of Queensland has delivered a significant judgement concerning the obligations of liquidators to cause an insolvent company to incur the costs of complying with State environmental laws, in priority to other unsecured creditors.

On instructions from the liquidators of Linc (Stephen Longley, Grant Sparks and Martin Ford of PPB Advisory) JWS made an application for directions in respect of both the liquidators’ and Linc’s environmental obligations in Queensland.

There are a number of reasons why liquidators might want to slow things down when it comes to commencing or prosecuting proceedings. A liquidator might want more time to fully investigate certain claims or secure appropriate funding before incurring substantial costs or adverse costs exposure. While there are options available to liquidators looking to delay either the commencement or service of a particular proceeding, each comes with its own risks.

The High Court of Australia recently dismissed an application brought by former Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd (QN) directors Mr Clive Palmer and Mr Ian Ferguson for a declaration that section 596A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is constitutionally invalid.