The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria in Boz One Pty Ltd v McLellan1 has recently confirmed that it will adopt a commercial approach to assessing the conduct of receivers. A private sale of charged assets will not necessarily breach s 420A of the Corporations Act 2001. A copy of the decision is available here.
Key Messages
A recent Victorian Supreme Court decision considered whether, in the context of liquidation, securing the indebtedness of a third party to avoid potential litigation exposure is an uncommercial transaction. The decision indicates that such a transaction will not necessarily be uncommercial and consequently voidable where the company receives a benefit in avoiding a potential exposure and the company's net position remains the same.
BACKGROUND
Mr Featherstone was recorded as director of Ashala Pty Ltd (Ashala) from 10 March 2004 to 7 October 2005 and from 28 November 2005 to 12 December 2005. Ashala occupied premises which Mr Featherstone owned as trustee for his family trust.
On 7 October 2005, Mr Featherstone agreed to transfer his shares in Ashala and two other related companies to Ms Kristy Marks and for Ms Marks to become the sole director of the three companies. This agreement was recorded in an “agreement letter” and ASIC was notified accordingly.
The High Court has recently clarified what is required for the creation of an express trust (Korda & Ors v Australian Executor Trustees (SA) Ltd [2015] HCA 6 (Korda)).
To be effective, express trusts must satisfy the three certainties of intention, subject matter and object. That is:
CLARITY OF INTENTION KEY TO CREATION OF EXPRESS TRUSTS: A WIN FOR RECEIVERS
The High Court has recently clarified what is required for the creation of an express trust (Korda & Ors v Australian Executor Trustees (SA) Ltd [2015] HCA 6 (Korda)).
To be effective, express trusts must satisfy the three certainties of intention, subject matter and object. That is:
It is a well understood legal requirement that any time security is granted, it needs to be registered. Failure to register collateral granted as security according to the requirements of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) can result in the property vesting in the company in administration or liquidation. However in certain circumstances the court may make an order extending the time for registration, even after an insolvency event in respect of the grantor.
The High Court of Australia unanimously reversed the decisions of the New South Wales Court of Appeal, and of Justice Black at first instance, in finding that liquidators cannot rely on the procedural court rules of a State or Territory to apply, outside the period allowed in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corps Act), to extend the time within which they can bring voidable transaction proceedings under s. 588FF of Corps Act.
THE PERILS OF AMBIGUITY IN BANKRUPTCY NOTICES
The Bankruptcy Act ('the Act') is prescriptive as to the form and content of bankruptcy notices. Courts have often observed that close observance of the rules is necessary in light of the serious consequences faced by debtors upon bankruptcy and failure to do so may result in the notices being rendered invalid.
In brief - Courts will not grant further extensions if second application is made too late
In brief - Courts will not grant further extensions if second application is made too late