The decision in Re Forge Group Construction Pty Ltd (in liq) (Receivers and Managers appointed); ex parte Jones [No 2] [2016] WASC 87 confirms that while some communications between liquidators, receivers and their respective solicitors can be privileged, it is not necessarily always the case. Critical factors include the purpose of the communication in question and whether there is a sufficient commonality of interest between liquidators and receivers in relation to the communication’s subject matter.

Facts

WHAT HAPPENED?

Rahan Constructions Pty Ltd (Rahan) was contracted to undertake commercial construction and other works in about April 2012.  On or about this date, Rahan entered into a credit account with Asset Flooring Pty Ltd (Asset Flooring).  Rahan’s obligations under this credit account were personally guaranteed by the respondent, Mr North.

On 30 July 2013, Rahan was wound up by order of the court and Asset Flooring sought to enforce the guarantee for the outstanding balance owing under the credit account.

Key Points:

Companies that have leasing as a small and irregular part of their overall business still must comply with the PPSA if their interests in leased goods are to be protected.

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Currey in which the Court looks at whether a breach of clause 25.1 of the Code of Banking Practice renders a guarantee void or voidable.

BACKGROUND

A bank lent money to a family company, which was secured by personal guarantees provided by the applicants. 

By its much anticipated yet hardly surprising judgment in Forge Group Power Pty Limited (in liquidation)(receivers and managers appointed) v General Electric International Inc  [2016] NSWSC 52, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has again shone a bright light on the importance of perfection of security interests under the PPSA, and the dramatic consequences that follow for failing to do so by reason of the PPSA vesting rules.  Indeed, the failure to register in this case has had multi-million dollar consequences.

The assignment of debts is common in many transactions - from the sale of businesses to restructuring scenarios.

Assigning a debt requires written notice of the assignment being given to the debtor.  Under conveyancing legislation this notice can be given by either the assignor or assignee (for example, section 12 Conveyancing Act (NSW)).

Additional rules now apply for debts captured by the Personal Property Securities Act (PPSA).

On 1 December 2015, we wrote about the decision of His Honour Judge Chivell of the District Court of South Australia in Matthews v The Tap Inn Pty Ltd [2015] SADC 108.

With the introduction of the unfair preference regime in the Corporations Act 2001, a short provision was included which stated:

“… a secured debt is taken to be unsecured to the extent of so much of it (if any) as is not reflected in the value of the security.”(section 588FA(2))

The provision has been rarely considered. There has been little case law providing any judicial interpretation of the subsection.

That is, until the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (PPSA) commenced.

On 14 July 2015, the South Australian District Court in Matthews v The Tap Inn Pty Ltd [2015] SADC 108 handed down a decision whose underlying reasoning could, if applied by superior courts around Australia, broaden the scope for liquidators to pursue unfair preference claims against secured creditors.

The decision

This week’s TGIF considers the case of Bowesco Pty Ltd v Westpoint Management Ltd [2015] WASCA 184, which considered whether a guarantor had a right of subrogation enabling it to be repaid in advance of the second ranking creditor. 

BACKGROUND