Introduction

In Botsman v Bolitho [2018] VSCA 278, the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed an appeal from the decision of Croft J to approve the settlement of two related proceedings arising from the failed merger of Banksia Securities Limited (Banksia) and Statewide Secured Investments Limited (Statewide).

In this proceeding, the Full Court of the Federal Court considered three main issues:

• whether certain on-lending arrangements gave rise to legitimate tax deductions for interest;
• duties and liabilities of directors who were not directly involved in the impugned transactions; and
• costs payable by a representative where claims were brought against the estate of a deceased director and the representative of that estate, in his own right.

Facts

Introduction

In Botsman v Bolitho [2018] VSCA 278, the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed an appeal from the decision of Croft J to approve the settlement of two related proceedings arising from the failed merger of Banksia Securities Limited (Banksia) and Statewide Secured Investments Limited (Statewide).

On 21 September 2018, the Supreme Court of Western Australia Court of Appeal delivered the eagerly anticipated decision in Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)1. The appeal decision has come down on the side of what many considered to be the correct position for set off compared to the findings in the first Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)2 case.

The dialogue is changing yet is the law enabling the practical change Directors need?

Achieving significant cultural shift in any business environment is no easy task, so it’s by no means ground-breaking to declare that after 1 year in operation, it still cannot be said that the new “Safe Harbour” legislation has resulted in a cultural change among directors.

The Western Australian Court of Appeal has ruled that giving security to a Bank does not destroy mutuality for the purposes of statutory set-off if the security allows the debtor to use assets to pay its debts in the ordinary course of business.

If you have guaranteed the debts of a person or entity that is in financial distress, you should take legal advice as soon as possible. Whatever you do, do not panic and make a rash decision such as declaring bankruptcy, winding up your business or selling your family home. The creditor seeking to enforce the guarantee may be more amenable to compromise than you think, particularly given the risks that creditors often face when they seek to enforce guarantees.

Several decisions handed down in the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) space have emphasised the importance of registering security interests within the legislative timeframes and also examined the discretionary factors courts will consider in their deliberations over whether extensions of time for registration of security interests should be granted.

The operation of section 133 

The law currently provides an easy out for trustees of a bankrupt, specifically in respect of real property  

Section 133 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the Act) provides an option for the trustee in bankruptcy to disclaim real property where it is burdened by onerous covenants. This disclaimer is often exercised where the amount owed in the form of a mortgage and further caveats or covenants registered on title of the real property exceeds the value of the property.  

Some of the most far-reaching Australian insolvency law changes are taking effect. These new laws will restrict the enforceability of a whole class of common clauses in contracts –so called 'ipso facto' clauses.

In this edition of FINSights, we explore what these changes mean for financiers, and outline key tips and issues they should consider as we move forward into the new regime.

What are ipso facto clauses?