In Taylor & Ors v Bank of New Zealand (HC, 14/12/2010, Panckhurst J, Christchurch, CIV 2008-409-964), the High Court held that a bank's appointment of a receiver without any prior written notice to the debtor was in accordance with the terms of the security agreement and was therefore valid.
Big receiverships often test legal boundaries, and the Crafar group receivership is no exception. Gibson & Stiassny v StockCo & Ors1 is the longest decision to date on the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 (PPSA).
Although the facts are complex, the practical take-outs are fairly simple:
The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court decision, agreeing with receivers that certain sales by the debtor were not in the ordinary course of business, but rather payments to an unsecured creditor.
In this case1 when the debtor began to experience cash flow difficulties, it established another company to purchase stock, which the debtor would find buyers for. Sales were made either in the name of the new company, or the debtor would account to the new company for the sale proceeds.
It is not uncommon for a receiver, liquidator or competing creditor to be presented with a security agreement, the ink on which appears scarcely to be dry.
If that secured creditor registered on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) months or years earlier, does that registration date determine priority between competing security interests? Or is that unfair to other creditors?
On May 19, 2016, the concept of a “Bankruptcy,” as the legal term was defined, ceased to exist under Panamanian law. Law 12 of 2016 (the “Insolvency Law”) entered into force on that date and introduced new proceedings into our legal system. These proceedings are referred to as Reorganization and Liquidation.
The enactment of the Insolvency Law sought not only the protection of the rights of creditors, but also to achieve a differentiation between “efficient” and “non-efficient” companies, depending on the reasons and circumstances that give rise to their insolvency status.
Desde el 19 de mayo de 2016, la figura de “Quiebra” dejó de existir en Panamá para darle paso a unos procesos innovadores en nuestro ordenamiento jurídico, conocidos por la ahora vigente Ley 12 de 2016, como Procesos Concursales de Insolvencia. Estos son la Reorganización y la Liquidación.
El objetivo de esta modificación legislativa fue, no solo la protección del crédito de los acreedores, sino también lograr una diferenciación entre empresa “eficiente” y “no eficiente”, dependiendo de las razones y circunstancias que han dado lugar a su estado de insolvencia.
General remarks
In the case of syndicated loans involving Polish security providers there are two legal concepts that are commonly used to secure the lenders' rights under the finance documents:
Ruling description
In its judgment of January 15, 2014, the Provincial Administrative Court (WSA) in Warsaw (case no. III SA/Wa 1928/13) ruled that a bankruptcy receiver was not required to correct input tax under the procedure set forth in Art. 89b (1) of the VAT Act (in the version which took effect on January 1, 2013) if the creditor cannot correct output tax under the “bad debt relief” procedure due to the debtor being bankrupt.
On April 9, 2015, the lower house of the Polish parliament adopted a new Restructuring Law. The main goal of the new law is to introduce an effective mechanism to restructure a debtor’s business and prevent its liquidation. Generally, the continuation of a business is more favorable to creditors, it preserves jobs and allows the uninterrupted execution of contracts.
Tax treatment in the hands of the creditor
Polish tax regulations provide three major methods for obtaining a tax deduction for irrecoverable debt: waiver or forgiveness of debt, debt write-off and revaluation write-off.