Sellers and suppliers of movable assets can deal with problems caused by poorly-paying customers through a retention of title clause. This clause makes it contractually possible to stipulate that ownership of a certain good does not transfer until the third party acquirer has paid the full price.

It is interesting to note that the new Law on Pledges has created a better legal framework for the retention of title clause, putting any creditor - assuming a retention of title clause has been included - in a stronger position.

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.

Simple retention of title clauses are commonplace and generally effective in contracts for the sale of goods. However, extending their effect to the proceeds of sale of such goods requires careful drafting.

The Court of Appeal has provided some further clarity around the creation and effects of fiduciary obligations in relation to such clauses.[1]

Proceeds of sale clauses

The Supreme Court has confirmed that declarations can be made approving settlement payments and the mere fact that a liquidator has acted on incorrect advice will not preclude a settlement payment being regarded as an expense “properly incurred” for the purposes of s 556(1)(a) of the Corporations Act.

Lewis & Templeton & Warehouse Sales Pty Ltd (in liq) v LG Electronics Australia Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2016] VSC 63

Background

In a recent judgment, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that a party who purchases and accepts the transfer of moveable assets subject to a retention of title acquires a right of conditional ownership with respect to those moveable assets and has the power to create an unconditional right of pledge over such right of conditional ownership.

Increased vigilance required in actions for recovery: a "yes, but" does not constitute acceptance

In the presence of a retention of title clause where collective insolvency proceedings are initiated against a debtor, the creditor must file a request for the recovery of goods sold under the retention of title clause before the judicial administrator within three months from the date the opening judgment is published in the Bodacc (Official Bulletin of Civil and Commercial announcements).

Who to pay when the bunker supplier becomes insolvent

1. Introduction

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Hussain v CSR Building Products Limited, in the matter of FPJ Group Pty Ltd (In Liq), in which an ROT clause was held to be a “security”, defeating the liquidators’ unfair preference claim.

Background

On 18 July 2014, FPJ Group Pty Ltd (FPJ Group) was wound up in insolvency.

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.

In Hussain v CSR Building Products Limited; In the matter of FPJ Group Pty Ltd (in liquidation) the Federal Court held that a retention of title (ROT) clause secures the purchase price of the goods it covers, and that payment of that price will not be an unfair preference since the creditor has not received payment of an “unsecured debt” within the meaning of section 588FA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).