Although we have been operating under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) for a number of years, this area of law continues to generate disputes because of the complexity of the legislative regime and the ramifications of being an unsecured creditor of an insolvent entity.

Mesa Minerals Ltd was placed into voluntary administration on 13 July 2016 with a holding deed of company amendment (‘DOCA’) entered into on 3 November 2016. The DOCA’s stated objective was to provide sufficient time for the Administrators to conduct further investigations into the course of action in the best interests of the creditors. Clause 8 of the DOCA stated that there was no property available for distribution to creditors.

This week’s TGIF considers the process that a liquidator may follow when a director fails to attend at an examination. It considers the appeal in Mensink v Parbery [2018] FCAFC 101, in which the Court set out the relevant differences between arrest warrants issued to require a director to attend an examination, and arrest warrants to answer charges for contempt.

What happened?

This week on Wednesday 12 September 2018, the High Court of Australia, by a majority judgment (3:2 Kiefel CJ, Edelman and Gaegler JJ concurring), handed down their decision in Mighty River International Limited v Hughes [2018] HCA 38. The majority of the Court held that holding DOCAs, which are deeds of company arrangement that provide additional time for administrators to undertake their investigations, are consistent with the object of Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and do not contravene any provision of that Part.

What are your responsibilities if there is a change to your company’s registered office?

The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) sets out an exhaustive (and even onerous) list of duties for Australian registered companies and their directors. Among these is the duty to notify the Australia Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) of a change to the company’s registered office. This must be done within 28 days of the change in location.

Prior to March 2017, any right to sue that comprised an asset of a bankrupt’s estate could only be litigated by the trustee of the bankrupt. The inability of a trustee to assign a bankrupt’s cause of action resulted in many such actions not being litigated due to factors such as a lack of resources. This position changed through the insertion into the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) in Schedule 2 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Bankruptcy), which expressly permits a trustee to assign to a third party any right to sue that is held by of a bankrupt estate (see section 100-5).

This week’s TGIF examines a recent decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Hosking v Extend N Build Pty Limited [2018] NSWCA 149, which considered whether payments made by a third party to an insolvent company’s creditors could be recovered by the liquidator as unfair preferences.

What happened?

The two limbs of the defence to an unfair preference claim under section 588FG(1)(b) and (2)(b) of the Corporations Act have separate work to do.

In a useful decision for liquidators and the insolvency industry, the WA Court of Appeal has clarified the nature of the tests creditors need to satisfy to maintain a defence to a liquidator's unfair preference claim in section 588FG(1)(b) or (2)(b) of the Corporations Act (White & Templeton v ACN 153 152 731 Pty Ltd (in liq) & Anor [2018] WASCA 119). 

The Patent Office's decision in McCann as Liquidator of ACN 137 233 919 v Molnar [2017] APO 30 explores interesting territory for liquidators and insolvency professionals – the intersection of insolvency and intellectual property.

On 2 October 2015, a company which had gone into liquidation, Sax, filed a request to amend the ownership of a patent application from itself to its sole director, Ms Molnar, pursuant to a sale agreement by which Sax had sold all of its intellectual property to Ms Molnar for $55,000. The Patent Office recorded the amendment on 16 October 2015.

This month at Business Breakfast Club, we discussed asset protection strategies and transactions which are voidable by a Trustee in Bankruptcy. There are a number of asset protection strategies to consider, particularly when carrying on a business, and there is no one perfect strategy. BAL Director, Katie Innes shared some of her insights on the topic. In addition to discussing some of the more common asset protection strategies Katie touched on:

Voidable Transactions