The recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Sino Australia Oil and Gas Limited (prov liq apptd) [2016] FCA 42 serves as a timely reminder to insolvency practitioners to confirm that their appointment as voluntary administrators has been validly made in accordance with section 436A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act).

Facts

Accolade is a very useful illustration of how a court exercises its discretion when a financier's failure to register its security interests properly was inadvertent.

When will a court exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time for the registration of security interests on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR)? The NSW Supreme Court has given some guidance in In the matter of Accolade Wines Australia Limited and other companies [2016] NSWSC 1023, specifically regarding:

Judge Chapman’s judgment is obviously a welcome development for participants in the structured capital markets, particularly those who transact regularly with US counterparties.

This week’s TGIF considers the case of Compton v Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 106, where the Court exercised its power to “go behind” a judgment upon which a petitioning creditor relied as proof of a debt that was owed.

WHAT HAPPENED?

The bar for recovering assets that have been dubiously transferred out of an insolvent company may not be as high as one might think.

Background

On 14 June 2016, in its judgment delivered in Great Investments Ltd v Warner [2016] FCAFC 85, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia confirmed that a benefit transferred from a company without authority can only be retained by the recipient in very limited circumstances.

This week’s TGIF considers the case of Brandon Industries (Vic) Pty Ltd v Locker Pty Ltd [2016] VSC 373 where the Court dismissed an application to set aside a statutory demand due to the applicant’s failure to establish a genuine dispute or offsetting claim pursuant to section 459H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

BACKGROUND

Any legislation or action which seeks to alter the pari passu distribution of an insolvent company's property amongst its creditors needs to be very carefully and comprehensively considered, and have regard to accrued rights and interests.

This week’s TGIF considers Britax Childcare Pty Ltd, in the matter of Infa Products Pty Ltd v Infa Products Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2016] FCA 848 which considers setting aside a DOCA and the administrator’s casting vote.

FACTS OF THIS CASE

After complex litigation with Britax, Infa Products lost the case and as a direct consequence, appointed administrators.

In Cato Brand Partners Pty Ltd v Air India Ltd the Supreme Court was required to consider whether or not a foreign company had grounds to challenge an application for a winding up order in circumstances where it had not sought to set aside a statutory demand within the required 21 day period.

When serving an application to set aside a statutory demand interstate, the strict modes prescribed by SEPA trump service under the Corporations Act (or any mode of informal effective service which might otherwise suffice). Practitioners forgetting this may face a rather abrupt conclusion to proceedings.