Debts claimed in statutory demands must be due and payable to the creditor named in the statutory demand.

When disputing statutory demands it is common for debtor companies to argue an offsetting claim, so as to reduce or extinguish the amount claimed in the statutory demand.

For there to be a valid offsetting claim there must be ‘mutuality’, meaning that the legal capacities in which both the offsetting claim and the statutory demand debt are each claimed and owed must align.

The decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court handed down this week in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2014] FCAFC 133 offers welcome certainty to administrators, receivers and liquidators in relation to their obligations with respect to post-appointment tax liabilities.

Significance

In the decision of Re Arcabi Pty Ltd (Receivers & Managers Appointed) (in liq) [2014] WASC 310 the court considered:

• the application of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) to goods being held on a bailment or consignment basis by a company in receivership and liquidation; and
• the receivers’ rights to be indemnified for costs and expenses related to investigating and protecting the property of third parties.

What is the significance?

A recent Victorian case has worrying implications for financiers and creditors.

A decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Vasudevan v Becon Constructions (Australia) Pty Ltd [2014] VSCA 14 has the potential to significantly broaden the power of a liquidator to attack a company transaction under section 588FDA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act) where there are ‘indirect benefits’ to a director or close associate of a director of the company.

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.

When the employer underwent a restructure, the employee’s reporting line changed, as well as his membership of a particular leadership team. His role was not abolished. For two months after the restructure, the employee continued to work in the same role, under the same contract, until he tendered his written resignation. He subsequently filed a dispute under the terms of the applicable Enterprise Agreement, seeking orders that he should have been retrenched by the employer.

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?

The Federal Court affirms that a secured creditor may be subrogated to the entitlements of priority creditors, to the extent that the Receivers’ payments to priority creditors have diminished its security.

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

In the wake of the global financial crisis, Hong Kong’s key financial regulators, the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) and the Insurance Authority (IA), have jointly issued a consultation paper (Paper) that outlines proposals for establishing a resolution regime for significant financial institutions (FIs) that are in crisis or likely to collapse.