Law 1676 of 2013 (Secured Interest Law), which came into effect in 2014, has substantially affected the legal scope of creditors’ rights in the context of insolvency proceedings (reorganization and liquidation). In particular, the law has potentially created a new type of creditor; the secured creditor, which has rights that differ from those creditors included in the creditor hierarchy in the Civil Code and the Corporate Insolvency Law.

The enactment of Law 1676 of 2013 (Secured Interest Law) in the context of insolvency proceedings − reorganization and liquidation − has substantially restated the legal scope of creditors’ rights in at least three aspects: (i) the existence or not of a new creditor type; (ii) the compatibility of that possible new type of creditor and the current system of creditors hierarchy, and (iii) the specific rights of that new creditor, should there be one, in creditors arrangement proceedings.

(i) Is the secured creditor a new type of creditor?

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.

In a wide-reaching judgment concerning an appeal by Mighty River International in the administration of Mesa Minerals, the Western Australian Court of Appeal has recognised that a "holding" Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) is permissible under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act.

The key points - Holding DOCAs as a flexible framework

The key points for insolvency and turnaround professionals to take from Mighty River International v. Hughes are:

Court of Appeal sets the record straight

The key point

On March 9, 2017, a full bench of the New South Wales Court of Appeal handed down a significant decision affecting approach to judicial review and approval of liquidator remuneration. Significantly, existing tension between decisions of different judges at first instance, and between NSW and Federal courts, has been resolved.