We reported on the first instance decision in this litigation last year (see here). The New South Wales Court of Appeal recently delivered judgment on the liquidators' appeal.
Mr Petricevic is the former director of Bridgecorp and currently faces criminal charges of fraud that carry with them the possibility of a maximum of 49 years in prison.
The Ministry of Economic Development has released a discussion document (together with a Q & A) which considers a range of potential changes to the fees and levies that fund the institutions that regulate New Zealand's corporate environment and financial markets.
Big receiverships often test legal boundaries, and the Crafar group receivership is no exception. Gibson & Stiassny v StockCo & Ors1 is the longest decision to date on the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 (PPSA).
Although the facts are complex, the practical take-outs are fairly simple:
This FYI outlines the things you need to know about the Insolvency Practitioners Bill in its latest form. You can follow this link to access the Bill on the New Zealand legislation website. The Bill is new legislation that seeks to improve the regulation of administrators, liquidators, and receivers. It proposes amendments to the Companies Act 1993 and the Receiverships Act 1993.
The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court decision, agreeing with receivers that certain sales by the debtor were not in the ordinary course of business, but rather payments to an unsecured creditor.
In this case1 when the debtor began to experience cash flow difficulties, it established another company to purchase stock, which the debtor would find buyers for. Sales were made either in the name of the new company, or the debtor would account to the new company for the sale proceeds.
The Gibson & Stiassny v StockCo & Ors litigation in relation to the Crafar receivership has clarified important aspects of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 (PPSA).
The procedures seem obvious in the abstract but, as the case demonstrates, can be less obvious on the ground:
It is not uncommon for a receiver, liquidator or competing creditor to be presented with a security agreement, the ink on which appears scarcely to be dry.
If that secured creditor registered on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) months or years earlier, does that registration date determine priority between competing security interests? Or is that unfair to other creditors?
Finnigan v He underlines the obligatory nature of bankruptcy set-off whereby once the statutory requirements that exist in section 310 of the Companies Act 1993 are met (and no exclusion applies), such a set-off is mandatory. It also discusses when a transaction occurs and the operation of the exclusion in section 310(2) that preludes bankruptcy set-off.