Overall 2018 has produced a number of positive judgments from the perspective of lenders and insolvency practitioners.
In particular, the courts delivered many useful judgments disposing of numerous challenges to the enforceability of loans and security and, also, restricting abuse of the courts’ processes.
Contemptuous McKenzie Friends
What you need to know
The Court of Appeal – Supreme Court of Western Australia has confirmed that the existence of a general security interest does not of itself destroy mutuality between a company in liquidation and its creditors and as a consequence section 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) can apply to allow a creditor to set-off its debts against amounts owed to the company in liquidation.
In a comprehensive unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal confirmed the following propositions:
What you need to know
The Court of Appeal - Supreme Court of Western Australia has confirmed that the existence of a general security interest does not of itself destroy mutuality between a company in liquidation and its creditors and as a consequence section 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) can apply to allow a creditor to set-off its debts against amounts owed to the company in liquidation.1
In a comprehensive unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal confirmed the following propositions:
Introduction
The concept of winding up does not exclusively apply to insolvent companies. Solvent companies can also be wound up, on the initiation of the company’s directors and shareholders (for example, as part of a corporate reconstruction or to close down non-operating or redundant entities).
An overview of the two key procedures to effect the dissolution of a solvent Australian company, being Members’ Voluntary Liquidation and Deregistration, is set out below.
Since the landmark decision in Re Solfire Pty Ltd (In Liq) (No. 2) [1999] 2 Qd R 182, the Queensland Supreme Court has often marched to its own tune when reviewing applications for insolvency practitioner remuneration and disbursements. In two related decisions arising from the insolvency of LM Investment Management and managed investment schemes of which it is responsible entity, the Court has now turned its attention to the controversies in this area over proportionality and access to trust assets with which its counterparts in New South Wales have grappled over the last 18 months.
In a series of recent decisions1, the Federal Court of Australia has held that section 588FL of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) operates such that any new security granted by a company in external administration2. that could only be perfected by registration on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR), and which is not the subject of an effective registration made before the appointment of the external administrator, will be ineffective3.
The Court of Appeal has helpfully confirmed that a judgment creditor can seek an order appointing a receiver by way of equitable execution where:
- the debtor holds a legal or equitable interest in property; and
- execution against the property is not available at law by one of the usual methods, for instance via the sheriff or by a garnishee order.
There was previously doubt as to whether such a receiver could be appointed where the debtor held a legal, as opposed to an equitable interest, in property.
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:
Update on Liquidator remuneration post-Sakr1
Key points summary
Following the recent high-profile appeal decision2, 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:
The High Court has recently expressed concern that distressed borrowers are being duped into paying money to the anonymous promoters of schemes, which purport to protect them from enforcement by lenders but are actually ‘utterly misguided and spurious’.
There are a number of schemes being promoted at the moment that supposedly protect borrowers in arrears from enforcement by their lender.