Masseunzulänglichkeit führt zu erneuter Zäsur: Privilegierung als Neumasseverbindlichkeit gilt nur für anteiligen Zeitraum ab Masseunzulänglichkeit

The High Court’s recent decision in Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd v Compton [2017] HCA 28 has confirmed a bankruptcy court can exercise a discretion to go behind the judgment debt where sufficient reason is shown for questioning whether there is a debt due to the petitioning creditor.

In the recent decision of Lane (Trustee), in the matter of Lee (Bankrupt) v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCA 953, Cooper Grace Ward acted for the trustee in bankruptcy, who sought directions from the Court regarding the administration of a trading trust where the bankrupt was the trustee.

Facts

Restructuring: Rollovers, Small business restructure rollovers and small business CGT concessions

July 2017

Linda Tapiolas Partner

T 61 7 3231 2562 M 0437 200 334

E [email protected]

Level 21, 400 George Street Brisbane 4000 Australia

GPO Box 834, Brisbane 4001 www.cgw.com.au

Section 477(2B) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that a liquidator must not enter into any sort of agreement that may last longer than three months without first obtaining approval of the Court, of the committee of inspection or by a resolution of the creditors.

Typically, a litigation funding agreement will be caught by this section because it will last more than three months.

The reference to ‘enter into an agreement’ could also catch a novation, and potentially a variation, to an agreement.

Banking & Finance Banking & Finance Juni/June 2017 4 | Editorial Fokus 6 | Blockchain – (auch) eine Innovation im Bereich der Wertpapierabwicklung? 9 | Deutschland reformiert das Insolvenzanfechtungsrecht – zumindest ein wenig 11 | Die Auswirkungen der Datenschutz-Grundverordnung auf das Bankenwesen Finance 13 | Bundesgerichtshof befasst sich mit dinglichen Upstream-Sicherheiten – Auswirkungen auf Limitation Languages?

All Australian states have sale of goods legislation that, in certain circumstances, allows an unpaid seller to retain possession of goods in transit where the buyer becomes insolvent. The statutory right, called stoppage intransitu, is a useful remedy to obtain payment.

A registered security interest on the PPSR is not required to exercise the statutory right. Administrators and liquidators may be trumped by a notice under the stoppage in transitu provisions.

However, the sale of goods legislation is not identical in each state.

Competing claims to goods are common where there is an unpaid seller with alleged retention of title, the supplier’s customer has gone into external administration and the goods are in the possession of a transport or warehouse provider. Thrown into the mix may be an administrator or liquidator demanding possession of the goods to sell them.

The recent case of M Webster Holdings Pty Limited (administrators appointed) v Specific Freight Pty Limited [2017] FCA 269 illustrates how a transport provider can become ‘the meat in the sandwich’ when a consignee of goods becomes insolvent.

Webster, a fashion retailer, operated two well-known Australian businesses, David Lawrence and Marcs. Webster was placed into administration in February 2017 and its administrators continued to trade with a view to securing a purchaser.

Anders als die Insolvenzordnung, sieht die EU-Richtlinie zum vorinsolvenzlichen Sanierungsverfahren keine Einschränkung der Arbeitnehmerrechte vor.