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"?

Introduction

On 29 June 2017 the High Court made an order for costs against the three former directors of Custom House Capital (the “Company”) having already disqualified them from acting as directors for periods in excess of ten years. The judgment was unusual because the order for costs was not just in relation to the legal costs but also for the very significant investigative costs of the Official Liquidator.

Background

In the recent decision of Re JD (a debtor), the High Court upheld a debtor’s challenge to a lender’s decision to reject a Personal Insolvency Agreement (“PIA”) proposal.

Section 115A of the Personal Insolvency Acts 2012- 2015 (“the Acts”) provides a new mechanism by which a debtor may seek the Court’s approval of a PIA notwithstanding its rejection by creditors.

This case is particularly significant as:

Introduction

With the commencement of the Companies Accounting Act 2017 (“2017 Act”) on 9 June 2017, the priority of charges in liquidations has been dramatically altered.

Judicial Development

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.

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.

The recent judgment in MB Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Limited (in liquidation) –v- Allied Irish Bank Plc [2016] has clarified what constitutes “notice” of the liquidation of a company for creditors and banks alike.

We are seeing attempts by the Chinese Government to provide the market with more sophisticated tools for dealing with unprofitable companies.

China is attempting to align its insolvency regime to international standards and introduce additional tools for dealing with the country's rising debt load.

Australian lenders with exposures to these debts (particularly in the coal, steel, manufacturing, cement, shipbuilding, solar, heavy machinery, mining and property sectors) should reassess insolvency risk and understand their options.

Particularly in smaller external administrations, the court will not blindly accept time-based remuneration as reflecting the value of the work, but will consider the proportionality of the remuneration.

In a number of recent judgments, the courts appear to be favouring considerations of proportionality coupled with an assessment of the realisations achieved when assessing application for the approval of remuneration for external administrators.