On 17 April 2015, the Commissioner of Taxation successfully sought special leave to appeal the decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2014] FCAFC 133 to the High Court.
Directors of an insolvent company face a strict duty not to allow their company to trade whilst insolvent. Whilst there are exceptions and defences available for directors, the recent case of Smith v Bone [2015] FCA 319 demonstrates that:
a director will not easily be excused, especially where they fail to seek advice on the company’s solvency in circumstances which would warrant such an enquiry; and that directors should not assume that simply entering into certain arrangements with creditors is enough to prevent them being liable for insolvent trading.
Summary
Insolvency practitioners pursuing unfair preference claims should give consideration to a recent Queensland District Court judgment which has endorsed the application of section 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) - which enables an insolvent company and a creditor to set-off their mutual debts against each other - to unfair preference claims.
In brief: The Victorian Supreme Court has provided guidance on set-off rights in the context of insolvency, particularly in relation to inconsistency between provisions of the Corporations Act and security of payment legislation. Partner Nick Rudge (view CV) and Lawyer James Waters report.
In this case, the High Court held that the proceeds of the sale of timber and land under a timber plantation scheme were not held on trust for investors by the scheme operators, with the result that they were available to secured creditors of the scheme in priority to the investors. In particular, the High Court found that a trust will not arise without clear intention by the parties, and a court will not infer a trust simply because it thinks it is an appropriate means of protecting or creating an interest. When establishing a managed investment scheme, parties shou
The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria in Boz One Pty Ltd v McLellan1 has recently confirmed that it will adopt a commercial approach to assessing the conduct of receivers. A private sale of charged assets will not necessarily breach s 420A of the Corporations Act 2001. A copy of the decision is available here.
Key Messages
You have done the work pursuant to the agreed terms of a customer service agreement ("CSA"). You should not have a dispute with your customer regarding what you have done and what you are entitled to be paid. However, they are not paying you or unable to pay you. What should you do to prevent this happening?
Security
The High Court has recently clarified what is required for the creation of an express trust (Korda & Ors v Australian Executor Trustees (SA) Ltd [2015] HCA 6 (Korda)).
To be effective, express trusts must satisfy the three certainties of intention, subject matter and object. That is:
CLARITY OF INTENTION KEY TO CREATION OF EXPRESS TRUSTS: A WIN FOR RECEIVERS
The High Court has recently clarified what is required for the creation of an express trust (Korda & Ors v Australian Executor Trustees (SA) Ltd [2015] HCA 6 (Korda)).
To be effective, express trusts must satisfy the three certainties of intention, subject matter and object. That is:
It is a well understood legal requirement that any time security is granted, it needs to be registered. Failure to register collateral granted as security according to the requirements of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) can result in the property vesting in the company in administration or liquidation. However in certain circumstances the court may make an order extending the time for registration, even after an insolvency event in respect of the grantor.