The Federal Court of Australia has provided judicial guidance about what constitutes taking possession by seizure under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) ("PPSA"). Knauf Plasterboard Pty Ltd v Plasterboard West Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] FCA 866 indicates that a receiver taking possession of personal property in accordance with a valid security agreement will not perfect a security interest by way of possession.
Background
The Senate Economics Legislation Committee has released a report (Report) regarding its inquiry into the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 (Bill) which amends:
Does a potential administrator’s involvement in pre-administration contingency planning give rise to a conflict of interest, such that the potential administrator should be disqualified from accepting the formal appointment?
Korda, in the matter of Ten Network Holdings Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] FCA 914
In Short
The Situation: Frequently, the statutory moratorium period provided to voluntary administrators to restructure an insolvent company is too short to find a solution. Administrators often utilise "holding" deeds of company arrangement to extend the period of moratorium and "buy" time to investigate potential restructuring opportunities for the future of the company. A creditor recently challenged this industrywide practice by arguing that holding DOCAs are invalid.
This week’s TGIF considers whether a flexible payment arrangement between a subsidiary and its holding company creditor meant the parent suffered no loss on the insolvency of the subsidiary.
What happened?
On 17 August 2017, the West Australian Court of Appeal published its reasons in Perrine v Carrello [2017] WASCA 151 drawing a close to the long-running dispute between the Perrines and the liquidator (Liquidator) of their failed pod-home building company (PodCo).
In a decision of importance for liquidators and litigation funders, the Western Australian Court of Appeal in Perrine v Carrello has further explained the important issue of how to determine the amount of compensation recoverable by liquidators where insolvent trading has occurred.
This week’s TGIF considers the decision of EH 2015 Pty Ltd (in liq) v Caratti (No 3) [2017] WASC 210 which concerned the rights of a liquidator to funds paid into court as security by a company which subsequently became insolvent.
What happened?
On 20 January 2016, a liquidator was appointed to a trustee company pursuant to an order of the Federal Court.
The innocuously named Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No 2) Bill 2017 (Cth) (the Bill) makes only a small number of amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) insofar as the safe harbour reforms of Australia’s insolvent trading law are concerned.
Key Points:
In a decision of considerable concern to creditors1, the High Court has determined that a bankruptcy notice founded on a judgment debt is open to challenge on the basis that there is a “sufficient reason” for questioning the underlying debt – even if that judgment was the product of a fully contested trial in which both parties were legally represented, and was not procured by fraud or collusion.