The bar for recovering assets that have been dubiously transferred out of an insolvent company may not be as high as one might think.

Background

On 14 June 2016, in its judgment delivered in Great Investments Ltd v Warner [2016] FCAFC 85, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia confirmed that a benefit transferred from a company without authority can only be retained by the recipient in very limited circumstances.

Accolade is a very useful illustration of how a court exercises its discretion when a financier's failure to register its security interests properly was inadvertent.

When will a court exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time for the registration of security interests on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR)? The NSW Supreme Court has given some guidance in In the matter of Accolade Wines Australia Limited and other companies [2016] NSWSC 1023, specifically regarding:

Judge Chapman’s judgment is obviously a welcome development for participants in the structured capital markets, particularly those who transact regularly with US counterparties.

Any legislation or action which seeks to alter the pari passu distribution of an insolvent company's property amongst its creditors needs to be very carefully and comprehensively considered, and have regard to accrued rights and interests.

The decision in In the matter of Independent Contractor Services (Aust) could mean more reliance upon fair entitlements guarantee funding provided by the Commonwealth in relation to the liquidation of trading trusts.

Key Points:

This case provides some clarification of matters relating to registration of retention of title clauses for secured creditors dealing with grantors

The registration of security interests on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) is a critical, yet unresolved, issue in the context of the appointment of administrators and liquidators, and also for parties to sale transactions.

The issue of how causation can be established has been one significant debate in Australian securities class actions involving alleged breaches of the Corporations Act by corporations. It has been unresolved whether shareholders must prove individual reliance on the contravening conduct of companies, or if the conduct affects the market price of shares purchased and/or sold by shareholders is sufficient.

Key Points:

While shareholders may only need to establish indirect market causation, there are still significant obstacles for establishing shareholder claims.

Do plaintiffs in a shareholder class action have to show they relied upon misleading or deceptive conduct, or is it enough that the market in general relied upon them, which then affected the share price?

The Australian Government is proposing to constrain certain "ipso facto" clauses ‒ a move which could make flip clauses void. The closing date for submissions is Friday 27 May 2016.

How would changes to ipso facto clauses affect securitisation?

Key Points:

Although they should always keep time-frames very much in mind, the decision in BKA Practice Co Pty Ltd gives liquidators greater scope to find all possible time-frames in which they have to work.