A recent court decision is a timely reminder of the limitations that can affect a person’s ability to rely on set-off rights when a debtor or contract counterparty becomes insolvent.

In the recent case of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed)[1], the Western Australian Supreme Court has confirmed that the grant of a security interest under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (PPSA) by a company to a third party will likely render any rights of set-off enjoyed by the company’s contractual counterparties worthless where the company subs

On 13 June 2017 the Australian Financial Review published an article titled “SumoSalad uses Insolvency Laws to fight Scentre’s Westfield”.

Long-awaited law reform to bring Australia's insolvency regime into step with many of its trading counterparts is slated to be enacted in the second half of 2017. The text of the law is currently before parliament for debate. If passed, Australia will see:

Section 477(2B) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that a liquidator must not enter into any sort of agreement that may last longer than three months without first obtaining approval of the Court, of the committee of inspection or by a resolution of the creditors.

Typically, a litigation funding agreement will be caught by this section because it will last more than three months.

The reference to ‘enter into an agreement’ could also catch a novation, and potentially a variation, to an agreement.

In December 2016 we posted on the NSW Law Reform Commission’s recommendation to replace section 6 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW). Six months later, we can now confirm that section 6 is (finally) dead and herald the new era of the Civil Liability (Third Party Claims Against Insurers) Act 2017 (NSW) (Act). The new Act is now live (from 1 June 2017) and is a welcome clarification of the confusion and ambiguity caused by section 6.

In the event of a contractual counterparty going into liquidation, whether or not a trade counterparty may claim set-off against debts owed to the insolvent counterparty can dramatically affect the commercial position of the account debtor. This was recently highlighted in the decision of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers appointed) [2017] WASC (2 June 2017).

What does this mean for you?

On 19 May 2017, the PersonalProperty Securities Amendment (PPS Leases) Act 2017 (Cth) (Amendment Act) received Royal Assent and is now effective. The Amendment Act has changed the definition of a "PPS Lease" (PPS Lease) under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA).

Key points summary

Following the recent high-profile appeal decision, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has now finalised the saga that was the review and approval of the remuneration of the Liquidator of Sakr Nominees.

From that decision emerge several key points for insolvency professionals when considering their remuneration:

Whether you are a liquidator, director, employee, shareholder or creditor of a company in financial distress, the experience of a corporate insolvency is usually not pleasant. Directors face the threat of being investigated for breaches of directors duties, employees become unemployed, shareholders become the owners of worthless assets and creditors are forced to come to the realisation that they will never see the money owed to them (or at least not all of it).