Obtain advice before you lodge a proof of debt or vote in a liquidation

Secured creditors should remember that submitting a proof of debt and voting in a liquidation may result in the loss of their security if they get it wrong.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales has delivered a timely reminder to secured creditors of a company in liquidation, where the secured creditor lost its security because it submitted a proof of debt for the full amount of its debt and voted on a poll at a creditor’s meeting for its full debt.

Liquidators are commonly appointed to a company where, prior to liquidation the company was a trustee of a trust. Often when the liquidators are appointed, the company has ceased to be the trustee and a replacement trustee has not been appointed.

In these circumstances, the company in liquidation is a bare trustee in relation to the trust assets and the liquidator will assume this role until a replacement trustee is appointed. Often a replacement trustee is not appointed.

Does the liquidator as bare trustee have a power to sell trust assets?

Secured creditors should not allow a liquidator to sell a secured asset without first:

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.

The Illinois Supreme Court recently provided certainty to dissolving corporations with respect to the risk of facing a lawsuit even after it has long since dissolved. Illinois permits lawsuits against dissolved corporations for up to five years after the corporation has ceased to exist. The Supreme Court clarified that only those claims that have accrued prior to the corporation's dissolution (i.e., the injury occurred prior to dissolution) may be brought in that five-year period.

The recent decision of the Federal Court in Carter in the matter of Damilock Pty Ltd (Damilock) highlights the need for liquidators to review current practices when paying priority creditors (e.g. employee entitlements).

Facts

The plaintiffs were appointed as administrators of Damilock on 26 June 2007 and subsequently appointed as liquidators by creditors’ resolution at a meeting on 7 September 2007.

The 7th Circuit has again left a disappointed creditor with no recourse because of the creditor's failure to do basic investigation or take steps to protect itself. (On Command Video Corporation vs. Samuel J. Roti, Nos. 12-1351 and 12-1430, January 14, 2013). This case follows other cases in which the 7th Circuit has shown itself decidedly unfriendly to creditors who sought compensation through the courts in failed business ventures but could have, but failed, to prevent their unfortunate situation.

The PPSA (Personal Property Securities Act) will celebrate its first birthday on 30 January 2013.

The PPSA introduced fundamental changes for business structuring arrangements. Assets that are subject to non-arms’ length lease or hire arrangements can be at risk if the entity that has possession of the property under the lease or hire agreement is placed in liquidation or receivership.

What is a PPS lease?

A ‘PPS lease’ is the lease or hire of property for a period (including options):

When being sued, corporate and individual defendants should always confirm that the plaintiff has not been previously discharged in bankruptcy and failed to disclose the claim in the proceeding as an asset of the bankruptcy estate. In Guay v. Burack, 677 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012), the plaintiff brought numerous claims against various governmental entities, governmental officials and a police officer.

In a recent decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals was faced with a situation that is the bane of any commercial and business attorney. A legal document contained an error. But in this case, the error was so extreme and obvious that the court was willing to reform the document to correct the error, in the face of other cases where courts refused to let parties escape from their mistakes. In re: Equipment Acquisition Resources (7th Cir., No. 1103905 decided on August 9, 2012)