Impact of Apportionment
The High Court decision in Hunt & Hunt v. Mitchell Morgan Nominees Pty Ltd ((2013) HCA 10) highlights the impact of proportionate liability where it applies. In that case the High Court apportioned 87.5% of the liability to bankrupt fraudsters with only 12.5% of the liability being apportioned to the solicitors who had failed to protect the plaintiff from the fraud. Without the impact of apportionment Hunt & Hunt would have been liable severally for 100% of the loss.
If your terms of trade documents don’t have the correct provisions, you can lose goods supplied to a customer that becomes insolvent, even though you may have title to the goods.
A recent Supreme Court decision highlights the need for retention of title suppliers to have adequate terms of trade documents and to register security interests on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) to avoid losing assets if a customer becomes insolvent.
In DSG Holdings Australia Pty Ltd v Helenic Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 96, the Court of Appeal considered the meaning of the “interests of the creditors as a whole” under section 600A of the Corporations Actand the circumstances in which the Court will intervene to set aside or impose conditions on resolutions passed at creditors meetings.
BACKGROUND
In the recent matter of JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association v Fletcher; Grant Samuel Corporate Finance Pty Ltd v Fletcher [2014] NSWCA 31, the NSW Court of Appeal handed down a decision with important consequences for liquidators and the time they have to commence proceedings for voidable transactions. The decision also illustrates the frequently inconsistent operation of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and Court procedure rules. Senior Associate, Elisabeth Pickthall and Associate, Stefano Calabretta discuss the decision.
Introduction
When the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (Model Law) was introduced into Australian law in 2008, Australian admiralty practitioners expressed concern that the legislation which enacted the Model Law into Australian law did not take into account its potential impact on the right to arrest a ship in Australia. The concern was that the Model Law would prevent parties from arresting ships in Australia, if the shipowner or charterer was the subject of foreign insolvency proceedings.
Result
In a recent Federal Court case in Australia (Global Tradewaves Ltd ("GTL") [2013] FCA 1127), liquidators appointed by the British Virgin Islands (BVI) court to GTL, successfully obtained leave to examine a former director of GTL in relation to the company's affairs and to compel him to produce certain company records.
UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency
In many bankruptcies the trustee is without funds to undertake litigation for the benefit of the bankrupt estate. In some cases a creditor is willing to indemnify the trustee in respect of the costs of such litigation where there are strong prospects of a successful conclusion with sufficient funds realised to distribute a dividend to creditors.
In the recent Victorian Supreme Court decision of Central Cleaning Supplies (Aust) Pty Ltd v Elkerton and Young (in their capacity as joint and several liquidators of Swan Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation))[1], the Supreme Court considered the issue of whether the Plaintiff's credit application signed by Swan Services Pty Ltd (Swan Services) before 30 January 2012 was a 'transitional security agreement' within the meaning of that term in the Personal Property Securities Act
Our Insolvency Update of 3 March 2014 refers to the Federal Court’s decision in Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) v Commissioner of Taxation . The court held that liquidators and receivers and managers cannot be held personally liable for any CGT liability subsequently assessed as due (where funds are remitted in the ordinary course and to secured creditors before the Commissioner of Taxation issues the assessment).