This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.
What happened?
This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal where a company’s creditors successfully opposed an application by the company’s liquidators to compromise proceedings commenced on the company’s behalf.
Introduction
We recently acted for the Commonwealth (Represented by the Australian Government Department of Jobs and Small Business) in Re Stay in Bed Milk and Bread Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 181, in which the Supreme Court of Victoria determined that a franchisor’s marketing fund was not subject to a trust (express or Quistclose) in favour of franchisees and therefore was available for distribution to the franchisor’s priority creditors, including the Commonwealth.
ASIC’s record with land banking schemes has been the story of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. It has wound up insolvent schemes long after the investor’s cash has well and truly dissipated.
For example:
In the recent case of 1st Fleet Pty Ltd (in liquidation), the Court clarified the information disclosure obligations of external administrators in the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (IPSC) and Insolvency Practice Rules (Corporations) 2016 (Rules).
There is only a short time period for compliance, and there can be cost consequences for non compliance.
The recent decision of the Federal Court (Besanko J) in Lock, in the matter of Cedenco JV Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2019] FCA 93 illustrates the critical importance for administrators and liquidators of complying with the requirements in relation to remuneration reports to creditors, and the severe adverse consequences which may flow if they fail to do so.
Background facts
Insolvency – every director’s biggest nightmare. Under the Corporations Act s 459C, when a creditor serves a statutory demand on a company for an outstanding debt, the company will be presumed insolvent if it fails to comply with, or set aside, the demand. But what happens when the creditor is also a director of the company? This was an issue recently considered by the Supreme Court of Queensland in Re CSSC (QLD) Pty Ltd [2018] QSC 282.
The facts
In business it is not uncommon for a director of a company to be owed money by that company.
If the commercial relationship breaks down, the director may think it is an option to serve a creditor’s statutory demand on the debtor company.
However, recent court decisions demonstrate that issuing a creditor’s statutory demand is not a sure fire method of obtaining payment where the director is owed the debt personally or is a director of both the creditor and debtor companies.
Cases where statutory demands have been successfully challenged
2006 was a boom year for Great Southern Plantations: it raised $1.141 billion from selling cattle droves, olive groves and woodlots to 25,800 investors in its Managed Investment Schemes (MIS) (source: Australian Agribusiness reports).
Mrs Govindasamy was one of these investors. She purchased 10 droves in the 2006 Beef Cattle MIS (cost: $50,000), 7 Grovelots in the 2006 Organic Olives MIS (cost: $56,000) and 33 Woodlots in the 2006 Plantations MIS (cost: $99,000).
The Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) commenced operation on 30 January 2012. All seven-year registrations made on the:
- old state-based motor vehicle registers, immediately before the PPSR commenced; or
- PPSR immediately after it commenced,
will begin to expire shortly and this will have adverse consequences for secured parties who do not act to renew.