The recent case of M Webster Holdings Pty Limited (administrators appointed) v Specific Freight Pty Limited [2017] FCA 269 illustrates how a transport provider can become ‘the meat in the sandwich’ when a consignee of goods becomes insolvent.
Webster, a fashion retailer, operated two well-known Australian businesses, David Lawrence and Marcs. Webster was placed into administration in February 2017 and its administrators continued to trade with a view to securing a purchaser.
Justice Robson has delivered his decision on an application by receivers and managers for directions as to, among other things, their obligations to pay preferential debts under the Corporations Act from the surplus generated by their trading-onof a business and other recoveries by their appointing bank.
Earlier this month, the High Court of Australia unanimously decided that a judgment creditor cannot apply for a certificate to effect enforcement overseas in circumstances where the judgment debtor is bankrupt.
The Background of the Case
In March 1992, several properties in central Prague, which had been seized by and vested in the state of Czechoslovakia after World War Two, were restored to one Jan Emil (the son of the owners of the properties), who resided in Melbourne, Australia.
A recent Victorian Supreme Court decision has resulted in the Commonwealth losing priority status for some $3.8m paid to the employees of a collapsed company, due to an unusual gap in the priority regime created under the Corporations Act.
In the matter of the désastres of Gail Alison Cochrane and Orb a.r.l.
1. Harbour Fund II LP v. (1) Orb a.r.l. (2) Litigation Capital Funding [2017]JRC171 ("the September judgment")
2. Harbour Fund II LP v. (1) Orb a.r.l. (2) Dr Gail Cochrane [2017]JRC007 ("the January judgment")
3. Representation of the Viscount re Cochrane and Orb a.r.l. [2017]JRC025 ("the February judgment")
The world of insolvency is currently undergoing serious review, with potential reforms flying around thick and fast. But talk of safe harbours and unenforceable ipso facto clauses (see our update here) have overshadowed a significant development that commenced on 1 March 2017: the ability for external administrators1 to now assign their rights to sue under theCorporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).
On 31 January 2017, the Supreme Court of New South Wales handed down judgment in In the matter of OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Limited (administrators appointed). This important decision highlights the severe consequences that may follow from seemingly innocuous mistakes made when registering security interests.
This week’s TGIF considers an objection by directors and related-party creditors to a liquidator retaining solicitors who had previously acted for a substantial creditor in proceedings against the company.
What happened?
On 15 August 2016, a statutory demand was issued to the operator of a Chinese dumpling restaurant. The restaurant operator failed to comply with the demand and was wound up by order of the Court. The petitioning creditor also obtained orders for the appointment of a liquidator to the restaurant operator.
Much has been written and discussed about Australia’s draconian insolvent trading laws and the Federal Government has taken note. It has released draft legislation seeking to amend the Corporations Act in a way that supports the restructuring of financially distressed companies. But do these amendments go far enough in providing companies with the time and space they require when they’re seeking to implement a financial restructuring plan?
BACKGROUND
The New South Wales Supreme Court has found that a secured party cannot rely on its own mistake when registering on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) to claim that the defective registration “temporarily perfects” its security interest.
The facts