Background
A recent Federal Court of Australia decision in the administration of the Hastie Group Limited (Hastie Group)1 illustrates a number of important points for administrators, secured parties and purchasers under the new regime established under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA). If you would like to discuss the implications of this case with any of our PPSA or insolvency litigation experts, please do not hesitate to contact us.
The facts
The Western Australian Court of Appeal has today delivered its judgment in the appeal of Westpac Banking Corporation v The Bell Group Ltd (in Liq) [2012] WASCA 157 ( The Bell Appeal ). The Court substantially rejected the appeal. The decision has important implications for directors, financiers and bondholder investors. It is a salutary reminder for financiers of the consequences of "knowingly receiving" a benefit from a breach of directors' duties.
Background
Whether you are a John Donne, Ernest Hemingway or Metallica fan, the above clause rings a bell. Last week the Court of Appeal for Western Australia joined those “Riding the Lighting” and provided its own musings on “For Whom the Bells Tolls” down under. Rather than affirming that the bell tolls for the infamous Spanish guerrilla fighters or a tortured metaphysical poet, the Australian court provided a new answer: The Bell [decision] tolls for “would be” secured lenders.
After 448 days in court, over 85,000 documents and more than 10 judgments, a special bench of the Western Australian Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Westpac Banking Corporation v The Bell Group Ltd (in liq) (No.3) [2012] WASCA 157 (Bell Appeal Decision). The Bell Appeal Decision raises issues relating to the integrity of transactions with companies facing insolvency, which may create serious liability issues for company directors and lenders alike.
Why the Inquiry?
The NSW Government has announced an independent Inquiry into Construction Industry Insolvency in NSW. Announced by NSW Minister for Finance & Services the Hon. Greg Pearce, the Inquiry will examine the extent and causes of insolvency in the NSW construction industry and what reforms are needed to minimise the adverse effects of insolvency on sub-contractors.
From 1 July 2012, all insolvency notices must be registered with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) on its new online register at www.insolvencynotices.asic.gov.au. Consequently, ASIC’s online register now serves as a comprehensive noticeboard of companies’ affairs in relation to insolvency. More importantly, it provides important information for creditors.
ASIC’s new administrative powers to wind up companies strengthens the remedial measures that can be taken against business operators attempting to avoid liabilities by abandoning companies and should help employees access their entitlements.
The Corporations Amendment (Phoenixing and Other Measures) Act 2012 (Cth) (Act) will commence on 1 July 2012.
In May a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services concluded its report into the collapse of Trio Capital Ltd which will have significant repercussions for financial lines insurers in Australia.
What distinguishes the Trio Capital collapse from the other major financial collapses in Australia in recent years, of Westpoint and Storm Financial, is that Trio involved a fraud. The enquiry adopted observations by Justice Peter Garling of the New South Wales Supreme Court describing the scheme as:
In Peter Grossman v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2011] AATA 6, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal upheld a 5 year disqualification period against former director Mr Grossman who was at the helm of 3 companies that met financial demise. The Tribunal affirmed ASIC’s decision to grant the maximum disqualification period made pursuant to s 206F of the Corporations Act which was returned after finding Mr Grossman participated in phoenix activities deemed to lack commercial morality and blatantly disregard the interests of creditors.
On 7 December 2011, the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court) delivered its decision in In the matter of Nugisi Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1512, clarifying the circumstances in which courts will allow the appointment of a provisional liquidator.
Facts