A recent court decision is a timely reminder of the limitations that can affect a person’s ability to rely on set-off rights when a debtor or contract counterparty becomes insolvent.

In the recent case of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed)[1], the Western Australian Supreme Court has confirmed that the grant of a security interest under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (PPSA) by a company to a third party will likely render any rights of set-off enjoyed by the company’s contractual counterparties worthless where the company subs

On 13 June 2017 the Australian Financial Review published an article titled “SumoSalad uses Insolvency Laws to fight Scentre’s Westfield”.

The recent decision of Markovic J in Robert Kite and Mark Hutchins in their capacity as liquidators of Mooney’s Contractors Pty Ltd (in liq) & Anor v Lance Mooney & Anor [2017] FCA 653 in the Federal Court of Australia provides practitioners with further clarification of the requirements when insolvency practitioners are appointed to companies which operate as corporate trustees. 

KEY TAKE-HOMES FOR INSOLVENCY PRACTITIONERS

This week’s TGIF considersAlleasing Pty Ltd, in the matter of OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd in which the Court considered the potential prejudice to creditors in extending the time for registration of security interests

Background

All Australian states have sale of goods legislation that, in certain circumstances, allows an unpaid seller to retain possession of goods in transit where the buyer becomes insolvent. The statutory right, called stoppage intransitu, is a useful remedy to obtain payment.

A registered security interest on the PPSR is not required to exercise the statutory right. Administrators and liquidators may be trumped by a notice under the stoppage in transitu provisions.

However, the sale of goods legislation is not identical in each state.

This week’s TGIF considers In re City Pacific Limited in which the NSW Supreme Court considered whether to approve a liquidator entering into a litigation funding agreement under which the funder would receive a premium of at least 50% of any judgment or settlement achieved.

WHAT HAPPENED?

In late 2009, two related companies were wound up and the same liquidator was appointed. The liquidator instituted two proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court:

The recent WA Supreme Court decision of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty ltd (in Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] WASC 152 illustrates the risk of relying on contractual and statutory set-offs where the counterparty has granted security to lenders in an insolvency situation.

In the event of a contractual counterparty going into liquidation, whether or not a trade counterparty may claim set-off against debts owed to the insolvent counterparty can dramatically affect the commercial position of the account debtor. This was recently highlighted in the decision of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers appointed) [2017] WASC (2 June 2017).

What does this mean for you?

Key points summary

Following the recent high-profile appeal decision, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has now finalised the saga that was the review and approval of the remuneration of the Liquidator of Sakr Nominees.

From that decision emerge several key points for insolvency professionals when considering their remuneration: