^{"Whenever there is change, and whenever there is uncertainty, there is opportunity."Mark Cuban, American businessman and investor}

In the current global market, very few things are clear other than that volatility and change are ever-present.

The recent WA Supreme Court decision in White v Spiers Earthworks Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 139, highlights the consequences of not registering a security interest under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (PPSA) when a company becomes insolvent.

The case also provides guidance about certain PPSA savings provisions, the treatment of transitional security interests and the primacy of PPSA over pre-PPSA legislation.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers Gogetta Equipment Funding Pty Ltd v Mark & Liz Pty Ltd [2018] VSC 91, which examined a priority contest between competing equitable interests in property.

What happened?

After nearly 20 years, the long running Bell litigation is almost over, with the Supreme Court of Western Australia having approved the settlement between the liquidators of the Bell group of companies and the syndicate of banks involved in the litigation (Re Bell Group (In Liq); Ex Parte Antony Leslie John Wooding as Liquidator of the Bell Group Ltd (In Liq) [2013] WASC 409).

BACKGROUND

In certain non-EEA countries, if a firm becomes insolvent, the claims of depositors in the home country will be preferred above the claims of depositors outside the home country, including the depositors of the UK branch.   The FSA is now consulting on proposals which will very significantly impact deposit-taking firms from non-EEA countries that operate national depositor preference regimes.  

These firms will be required either:

1. The 1992 ISDA Master Agreement: Court of Appeal provides clarity on payment obligations owed to insolvent counterparties

Lomas v JFB Firth Rixson Inc [2012] EWCA Civ 419

This is the twenty-ninth in our series of General Counsel Updates which aim to summarise major developments in key areas.

The Supreme Court handed down its judgment in relation to the client money application in the matter of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE). The judgment has a number of implications for firms who hold client money, and for firms who hold money with banks and other firms as clients themselves. The complicated and controversial nature of the appeal is reflected in the sharply opposing opinions of the Lords in relation to two of the three issues considered.

New Law on "Amendments to the Law on Insolvency (Bankruptcy) and Articles 17 and 223 of the Arbitrage Procedural Code with respect to establishment of special rules for bankruptcy of developers attracting money from participants in construction" was adopted on July 12, 2011 (the "Amendments"). Most of the Amendments were introduced as a special chapter No. 7 named "Bankruptcy of Developers" into the Federal law on Insolvency (Bankruptcy) No. 127-FZ as of 26 October 2002 (as amended) (the "Bankruptcy Law").

The Sinclair v Versailles1 decision has extinguished any prospect that a victim of a fraud has a proprietary claim to a fraudster’s secret profits. It also offers significant comfort to banks, insolvency practitioners and other potential recipients of trust funds by setting a high bar for whether a recipient person is “on notice” of a proprietary claim to those funds.