On 31 January 2017, the Supreme Court of New South Wales handed down judgment in In the matter of OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Limited (administrators appointed). This important decision highlights the severe consequences that may follow from seemingly innocuous mistakes made when registering security interests.
This week’s TGIF considers an objection by directors and related-party creditors to a liquidator retaining solicitors who had previously acted for a substantial creditor in proceedings against the company.
What happened?
On 15 August 2016, a statutory demand was issued to the operator of a Chinese dumpling restaurant. The restaurant operator failed to comply with the demand and was wound up by order of the Court. The petitioning creditor also obtained orders for the appointment of a liquidator to the restaurant operator.
Much has been written and discussed about Australia’s draconian insolvent trading laws and the Federal Government has taken note. It has released draft legislation seeking to amend the Corporations Act in a way that supports the restructuring of financially distressed companies. But do these amendments go far enough in providing companies with the time and space they require when they’re seeking to implement a financial restructuring plan?
BACKGROUND
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
Today the Queensland Supreme Court held that an insolvent company’s environmental obligations under State law were unaffected by the liquidators’ disclaimer of related property and resource tenures. This decision changes the previous understanding of liquidators’ powers and the order of priority in which claims will be paid in a liquidation, and may have broader implications for insolvent companies that are subject to obligations under State laws.
Today the Queensland Supreme Court confirmed that the liquidators of an insolvent company are ‘executive officers’ of that company under Queensland’s environmental laws, which means that the liquidators are required to use available funds to cause the company to comply with its environmental obligations under an environmental protection order issued to Linc.
On 28 March 2017 the Federal Government released for public consultation draft legislation (Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 – Exposure Draft) that seeks to amend the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) by introducing:
Last year, we reported that Australia had proposed significant insolvency reforms that, in our view, are long overdue ("A Major Leap Forward for Australian Insolvency Laws").
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.