It is common practice for company contracts to contain clauses, known as “ipso facto” clauses, which terminate or amend the contract (e.g. by accelerating payments) merely because a company has entered into a formal insolvency process.
The New South Wales Supreme Court has found that a secured party cannot rely on its own mistake when registering on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) to claim that the defective registration “temporarily perfects” its security interest.
The facts
This week’s TGIF considers Linc Energy Ltd (in Liq) v Chief Executive Dept of Environment & Heritage Protection [2017] QSC 53, in which the Queensland Supreme Court directed that the liquidators of Linc Energy were not justified in causing it to fail to comply with an environmental protection order
BACKGROUND
Earlier this month, the High Court of Australia unanimously decided that a judgment creditor cannot apply for a certificate to effect enforcement overseas in circumstances where the judgment debtor is bankrupt.
The Background of the Case
In March 1992, several properties in central Prague, which had been seized by and vested in the state of Czechoslovakia after World War Two, were restored to one Jan Emil (the son of the owners of the properties), who resided in Melbourne, Australia.
For many Australians superannuation can be an individual’s largest asset, the feeling of losing it when filing for bankruptcy is a very authentic concern for most of our clients. With certain components of the economy doing considerably well and other components enduring difficult economic times, bankruptcy numbers in Australia still continue to increase. Economists don’t speak about Australia’s two-speed economy much anymore, but it definitely still is two-speed.
Liquidators, administrators and receivers in Queensland are on notice that they may face serious personal consequences if they fail to cause companies to which they are appointed to comply with Environmental Protection Orders (EPOs).
Re Linc Energy Limited (In Liquidation) [2017] QSC 53 (13 April 2017) has determined that liquidators may not be able to escape obligations under an EPO by issuing a disclaimer notice.
The Supreme Court of Queensland has delivered a significant judgement concerning the obligations of liquidators to cause an insolvent company to incur the costs of complying with State environmental laws, in priority to other unsecured creditors.
On instructions from the liquidators of Linc (Stephen Longley, Grant Sparks and Martin Ford of PPB Advisory) JWS made an application for directions in respect of both the liquidators’ and Linc’s environmental obligations in Queensland.
The statutory demand process is widely used by companies wishing to secure prompt payment of debts owing by companies registered in Australia. This article will look at a company's options for dealing with a statutory demand.
What is a statutory demand?
There are a number of reasons why liquidators might want to slow things down when it comes to commencing or prosecuting proceedings. A liquidator might want more time to fully investigate certain claims or secure appropriate funding before incurring substantial costs or adverse costs exposure. While there are options available to liquidators looking to delay either the commencement or service of a particular proceeding, each comes with its own risks.
This week’s TGIF considers a recent Federal Court decision in which relief was sought under section 588FM of the Corporations Act to ensure a security interest perfected after the ‘critical time’ did not automatically vest.
What happened?
On 7 April 2016, administrators were appointed to OneSteel. OneSteel, a member of the Arrium Group of Companies, subsequently entered into a deed of company arrangement.