The High Court’s recent decision in Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd v Compton [2017] HCA 28 has confirmed a bankruptcy court can exercise a discretion to go behind the judgment debt where sufficient reason is shown for questioning whether there is a debt due to the petitioning creditor.

This week’s TGIF considers Singh v De Castro [2017] NSWCA 241, where the New South Wales Court of Appeal held that five directors of an insolvent corporate borrower had executed and were bound by personal guarantees.

BACKGROUND

The decision was an appeal from a decision of the District Court of New South Wales finding that five directors of an insolvent corporate borrower had executed and were bound by personal guarantees.

Key Points:

In a decision of considerable concern to creditors1, the High Court has determined that a bankruptcy notice founded on a judgment debt is open to challenge on the basis that there is a “sufficient reason” for questioning the underlying debt – even if that judgment was the product of a fully contested trial in which both parties were legally represented, and was not procured by fraud or collusion.

This update deals with “onerous property” and the issues involved when a trustee in bankruptcy disclaims onerous land, including the potential impact on lenders.

Disclaimer of onerous land by a trustee in bankruptcy

At any time, the trustee of a bankrupt estate may disclaim land which is burdened with onerous covenants or is unsaleable or not readily saleable (s 133 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)).

The New South Wales Court of Appeal recently handed down an important judgment relating to the composition of classes in a creditors' scheme of arrangement.  In First Pacific Advisors LLC v Boart Longyear Limited, the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed an appeal brought by First Pacific Advisors LLC (FPA).  The appeal was against an order made under s 411 of the Corporations Act 2011 convening meetings of creditors of Boart Longyear Limited (BLL) and several associated companies, to consider and if it saw fit, agree to two schemes of arrangements (one relating to

In the recent case of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed)[1], the Western Australian Supreme Court has confirmed that the grant of a security interest under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (PPSA) by a company to a third party will likely render any rights of set-off enjoyed by the company’s contractual counterparties worthless where the company subs

The recent WA Supreme Court decision of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty ltd (in Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] WASC 152 illustrates the risk of relying on contractual and statutory set-offs where the counterparty has granted security to lenders in an insolvency situation.

On 19 May 2017, the PersonalProperty Securities Amendment (PPS Leases) Act 2017 (Cth) (Amendment Act) received Royal Assent and is now effective. The Amendment Act has changed the definition of a "PPS Lease" (PPS Lease) under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA).

In one of the most significant decisions relating to schemes of arrangement in Australia in recent years, the New South Wales Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal challenging the composition of classes of creditors in the Boart Longyear restructuring.