I INTRODUCTION
The ultimate aim of the Bankruptcy Act 1996 (Cth) is to provide a fair and orderly process for the administration of the affairs of a debtor. In many circumstances the debtor may attempt to avoid his obligations to some or all of his creditors. The Bankruptcy Act recognises this and has long had provisions which empower trustees in bankruptcy to recover certain assets of a bankrupt. The two types of powers given to the trustee are where:
The Court refused to declare an appointment of administrators invalid under section 447C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) on the basis of a previous purportedly invalid removal of a director and alleged insufficient grounds to establish that the company was, or was likely to become insolvent. This case illustrates the Court’s willingness to overlook technical anomalies in exercising its discretion under section 447C where the end result for the company would be the same, and a broad approach in assessing whether there are reasonable grounds to form a view that a company
The recent WA Supreme Court decision in White v Spiers Earthworks Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 139, highlights the consequences of not registering a security interest under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (PPSA) when a company becomes insolvent.
The case also provides guidance about certain PPSA savings provisions, the treatment of transitional security interests and the primacy of PPSA over pre-PPSA legislation.
BACKGROUND
A Supreme Court of New South Wales decision in February 2014 is a timely reminder to creditors to ensure that agreements clearly articulate arrangements where funds are to be held on trust for a specific purpose. The Court revisited the question of the entitlement to retention funds and competing creditor claims in the matter of National Buildplan Group Pty Ltd (subject to deed of company arrangement)(Buildplan)
Korda v Australian Executor Trustees (SA) Ltd [2014] VSCA 65
In Korda v Australian Executor Trustees (SA) Ltd, the VSCA may have assisted the investors in a radiata pine managed investment scheme at the expense of trusts law orthodoxy.
The ability of limited recourse provisions to protect borrowers and financiers against insolvency risks may be weaker due to a recent English court case.
Limited recourse clauses are often used in project and structured finance transactions. Borrowers want to avoid the risk of their directors being liable for trading while insolvent; and financiers may want to avoid the possibility of insolvency clawback actions if they seek to enforce their security documents.
Central Cleaning Supplies (Aust) Pty Ltd v Elkerton [2014] VSC 61.
Appeal from liquidators’ decision to reject claim for the return of cleaning equipment subject to retention of title. Consideration of retention of title clauses and the application of the transitional security agreements under Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth).
Impact of Apportionment
The High Court decision in Hunt & Hunt v. Mitchell Morgan Nominees Pty Ltd ((2013) HCA 10) highlights the impact of proportionate liability where it applies. In that case the High Court apportioned 87.5% of the liability to bankrupt fraudsters with only 12.5% of the liability being apportioned to the solicitors who had failed to protect the plaintiff from the fraud. Without the impact of apportionment Hunt & Hunt would have been liable severally for 100% of the loss.
If your terms of trade documents don’t have the correct provisions, you can lose goods supplied to a customer that becomes insolvent, even though you may have title to the goods.
A recent Supreme Court decision highlights the need for retention of title suppliers to have adequate terms of trade documents and to register security interests on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) to avoid losing assets if a customer becomes insolvent.