In a prior blog post, “Making Sense of The Circuit Split on the Enforcement of Make-Whole Provisions in Bankruptcy,” we discussed the circuit split on the enforcement of a make-whole premium triggered by a bankruptcy petition. Shortly after that post was published, the U.S.

Two’s company when it comes to debt funding. Surely, three makes things a little crowded? It doesn’t have to be that way.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision in which the Court directed that liquidators would be justified in utilising trust funds to conduct further investigations to identify and pursue potential claims available to a trustee.

WHAT HAPPENED?

The plaintiffs were appointed as voluntary administrators of the trustee company (Trustee) and subsequently became its liquidators. The Trustee acted as responsible entity and trustee within a corporate group that funded property investment and development activities.

This week’s TGIF considers the case of Compton v Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 106, where the Court exercised its power to “go behind” a judgment upon which a petitioning creditor relied as proof of a debt that was owed.

WHAT HAPPENED?

This week’s TGIF considers the most recent decision in a line of cases which hold that the provisions of the Code of Banking Practice may be incorporated into loan agreements, as well as guarantees given by individuals.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers the Federal Court decision of National Australia Bank Ltd v Garrett [2016] FCA 714 in which the Court stepped in to invalidate and restrain an improper registration on the PPSR

BACKGROUND

This week's TGIF considers Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, in which the High Court overturned a finding by the Victorian Court of Appeal and confirmed that certificates of independent advice will not always protect lenders from an unconscionability claim.

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.

In the recent case of Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, the High Court has allowed an appeal relating to asset-based lending (ABL) and the enforceability of security associated with these loans. The High Court held that whilst asset-based lending itself is not unconscionable, certain conduct may render loans and security unenforceable. The decision is a reminder that lenders should ensure the circumstances of potential borrowers are fully scrutinised prior to lending.

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.