Our September 2012 insolvency update featured the article "Disclaiming Landlord's Interest in a Lease - an Australian Perspective". This article discussed the Victorian Court of Appeal's ruling that section 568(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (similar to our own section 269 of the Companies Act 1993 (NZ)) allows a liquidator to exercise his power of disclaimer to extinguish the leasehold estate of a tenant.
A creditor of a company subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) was recently successful in seeking termination of the DOCA by the court. As a result of the company's non-compliance with the DOCA, the majority of creditors resolved to extend the term of the DOCA and increase the amount to be paid by the company. The applicant creditor alleged that the DOCA should be terminated because the company had failed to make payment in accordance with it, and the variation had not taken effect.
The Court made an order terminating the DOCA on the grounds that:
There is a recognised ambiguity in the transitional provisions of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA),relating to the issue of whether an ‘umbrella agreement’, governing the supply of goods on retention of title (RoT) terms entered into prior to 30 January 2012, will be an effective transitional security interest.
In the matter of Maiden Civil (P&E) Pty Ltd; Richard Albarran and Blair Alexander Pleash as receivers and managers of Maiden Civil (P&E) Pty Ltd & Ors v Queensland Excavation Services Pty Ltd & Ors [2013] NSWSC 852
Overview
Summary
Dispute is one of priority, not ownership.
The first judgment regarding a major Personal Property Securities Act ("PPSA") priority dispute between a bank with a perfected "General Security Agreement" and an equipment owner with an unperfected "PPS Lease" has been handed down.
The decision in Richard Albarran and Blair Alexander Pleash as receivers and managers of Maiden Civil (P&E) Pty Ltd & Ors v Queensland Excavation Services Pty Ltd & Ors highlights three key issues for the insolvency industry:
In the recent decision of ASIC v ActiveSuper Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 234 (ActiveSuper), the Federal Court considered an application by ASIC brought pursuant to s 472(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) to appoint provisional liquidators to a company MOGS Pty Ltd (MOGS).
Summary
In the recent decision of Re Willmott Forests Ltd,1the Victorian Court of Appeal held that a liquidator could disclaim a lease under the Corporations Act (Act).
It is quite a thing for the law to remove from owners the rights normally associated with ownership and to confer them on receivers.
Which is why, although receivers are allowed considerable discretion in the exercise of their duties, they are also subject to oversight by the courts.
So how much freedom of manoeuvre do they have, and when will the court intervene? We look at a recent decision1 in the Australian Federal Court and consider its relevance for New Zealand insolvency practitioners.
Upon appointment, a liquidator will generally exercise control of as much of the company’s property as is available, so that it can be realised for the benefit of creditors. However, in some cases, a liquidator may not wish to retain certain property if it is unlikely that such property will provide a return to the liquidation.