To perfect a security interest by possession, a secured party must have actual or apparent possession of the property. A contractual right to possess is not enough.
We now have the first judicial guidance in Australia on the concept of "perfection by possession" under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (PPSA) (Knauf Plasterboard Pty Ltd v Plasterboard West Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] FCA 866).
What is "perfection by possession"?
The limitations of set-off in a liquidation scenario and the nature and effect of a security interest under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) have been clarified, with significant ramifications for principals and financiers, who should now review their rights, following the WA Supreme Court's decision in Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] WASC 152 (Clayton Utz acted for the successful receivers).
Safe harbour and ipso facto clauses reforms are closer, with the consultation on the Insolvency Laws Amendment Bill 2017 having closed last week, but further work is needed.
The Federal Government's consultation on the safe harbour and ipso facto reforms in the draft Insolvency Laws Amendment Bill 2017 closed on 17 May 2017, so we now have a better idea of what they will look like.
I. Executive Summary
I. Executive Summary
The reform (which has come into force and effect on 5 April 2017 ("Reform")) is aiming at increasing legal certainty in cases of rescission inside and outside of insolvency proceedings regarding insolvency rescissions due to willful disadvantages (Vorsatzanfechtung) for creditors.
Assets held by an insolvent corporate trustee in its capacity as trustee may not be "property of the company".
For more than 30 years, Victoria has stood apart from the rest of Australia in how it treats the assets of an insolvent corporate trustee. That may have changed, following the Supreme Court's decision in Re Amerind Pty Ltd (receivers and managers appointed) (in liq) [2017] VSC 127.
Introduction
After months of drama prompted by the intertwined destinies of a constitutional referendum and the recapitalization of Monte dei Paschi di Siena (“MPS”), Italy’s third largest bank, and following the resignation of the Renzi government, the first important measure approved by the new Italian cabinet was an emergency decree aimed at safeguarding the Italian banking sector.
A federal district court recently rejected the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s attempt to hold a buyer of assets liable for the seller’s unfunded defined benefit plan liabilities under a successor liability theory.[1] While the court decided the issue in favor of the buyer, it is a cautionary tale for buyers as it appears to be the first time the PBGC has argued for the application of successor liability in this context and is a depar
Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (“TIA”) provides that, subject to certain exceptions, the right of a holder of an indenture security to receive principal and interest payments, or to institute suit to enforce such payments after they become due, shall not be impaired or affected without such holder’s consent. Market participants had long viewed Section 316(b) of the TIA as a “boilerplate” provision, contained or incorporated by reference in most high yield indentures, that protected only a bondholder’s right to bring suit to enforce payment obligations.
Introduction
After months of drama prompted by the intertwined destinies of a constitutional referendum and the recapitalization of Monte dei Paschi di Siena (“MPS”), Italy’s third largest bank, and following the resignation of the Renzi government, the first important measure approved by the new Italian cabinet was an emergency decree aimed at safeguarding the Italian banking sector.