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

In DSG Holdings Australia Pty Ltd v Helenic Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 96, the Court of Appeal considered the meaning of the “interests of the creditors as a whole” under section 600A of the Corporations Actand the circumstances in which the Court will intervene to set aside or impose conditions on resolutions passed at creditors meetings.

BACKGROUND

In the decision of In the matter of AWA Limited (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) ACN 111 674 661 [2014] NSWSC 249, the New South Wales Supreme Court considered the scope of s 477D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and whether it was appropriate to make a direction regarding the administrators’ entry into a loan agreement to pay out a secured creditor.

Background

In the decision of JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association v Fletcher; Grant Samuel Corporate Finance Pty Limited v Fletcher [2014] NSWCA 31, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales confirmed that liquidators may apply under rule 36.16(2)(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR) to further extend the time within which they may bring voidable transactions proceedings.  We considered the first instance judgment in a

It goes without saying that it is important for an insolvency practitioner to be independent and to be seen to be independent when accepting an appointment or continuing to act in an existing appointment. The recent Federal Court decision of ASIC v Franklin [2014] FCA 68 provides some welcome guidance on what this means in practice and also on the contents of a declaration of independence, relevant relationships and indemnities (commonly known as a “DIRRI”).

FACTS

Luxembourg court decisions allow secured lenders to enforce Gecina share pledge.

A controversial insolvency dispute winding its way through courts in Spain and Luxembourg may reinforce the rights of secured lenders to enforce financial collateral within an insolvency proceeding. While the recent Luxembourg Tribunal decision enforcing a financial collateral pledge for payment default appears to favor the secured lenders, a potentially contradictory decision from the Spanish Commercial Courts throws the issue into uncertain territory.

The decision of the Queensland Supreme Court (Court) in International Cat Manufacturing Pty Ltd (in liq) & Anor v Rodrick & Ors [2013] QSC 307 is a reminder that liquidators who commence proceedings may be personally liable for costs of the proceeding where they are unsuccessful in their claim.

FACTS

In the case of Bosi Security Services Ltd v Wright [2013] WASC 431, in which the court granted an interlocutory injunction preventing the sale of land by receivers despite acknowledging that the applicants’ case under the Trade Practices Act and Australian Consumer Law was not a strong one and had obvious deficiencies.

Facts

Market participants welcome a clarification extending equitable subordination exemptions granted Sareb to those subsequently purchasing debt from Sareb.

On November 30, 2013, the Spanish legislator approved a recent amendment to Spanish insolvency law, introduced in March 2013, to clarify that a claim transferred to Spanish “bad bank” Sareb, and subsequently sold by Sareb to a third party, will also be exempt from equitable subordination risk.

Background

The recent Victorian Supreme Court decision of Le Roi Homestyle Cookies Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Gemmell [2013] VSC 452 determined that a person who does not claim privilege when being publicly examined by a liquidator will not be allowed to avoid pleading and providing discovery in subsequent civil proceedings on the basis that complying may expose them to a civil penalty or criminal sanction.

Facts

The defendants were alleged former de facto and shadow directors of Le Roi Homestyle Pty Ltd.