The recent decision of Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Premiercorp Pty Limited (Administrators Appointed) [2013] FCA 778 is a good example of the supervisory power played by the Court in the voluntary administration process and shows how a deed of company arrangement (DOCA) may be set aside where it is contrary to the interests of the creditors as a whole, even if the creditors vote in favour of the proposed DOCA.

Facts

Introduction

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has rejected an argument that the applicant for an order for a company to be wound in insolvency must prove that the company was insolvent at the "relation-back day" in addition to proving insolvency at the date of filing the application and the date of the hearing. 

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:

Summary

The recent Supreme Court of New South Wales decision of In the matter of Octaviar Administration Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2013] NSWSC 786 confirms that liquidators must notify all interested parties prior to seeking an extension for the period in which to bring preference actions.  For the first time, the Court has confirmed that the directors of the insolvent company are “interested persons” in cases where a liquidator intends to pursue the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) over potential preferential payments based solely on the potential for the ATO to