With the introduction of the unfair preference regime in the Corporations Act 2001, a short provision was included which stated:

“… a secured debt is taken to be unsecured to the extent of so much of it (if any) as is not reflected in the value of the security.”(section 588FA(2))

The provision has been rarely considered. There has been little case law providing any judicial interpretation of the subsection.

That is, until the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (PPSA) commenced.

Today, by a majority of 3-2, the High Court of Australia in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] HCA 48 confirmed that s 254(1)(d) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) (ITAA 1936) does not impose an obligation on trustees (including administrators, receivers and liquidators) to retain sufficient moneys from the trust fund to pay tax unless a relevant assessment has been issued.

This week’s TGIF considers a decision in which the Court held that an administrator who has unsuccessfully defended a proceeding may need to reinstate any remuneration previously received to satisfy the resultant costs order.

BACKGROUND

The deed administrator of a company subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) rejected proofs of debt submitted by a number of creditors.  The creditors successfully appealed against the rejection of the proofs of debt. 

This week’s TGIF considers the case of Bowesco Pty Ltd v Westpoint Management Ltd [2015] WASCA 184, which considered whether a guarantor had a right of subrogation enabling it to be repaid in advance of the second ranking creditor. 

BACKGROUND

The recent Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia decision of Templeton v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2015] FCAFC 137 has considered the application of 'proportionality' in determining receivers' remuneration.

What do you do when a company owes you money? Or a creditor issues a statutory demand on your company?

This article discusses what a statutory demand is and the risks and benefits of issuing a statutory demand to recover your money.

In a recent decision of the High Court of Australia (which is the highest appellate court in Australia), a freezing order in respect of a prospective foreign judgment has been unanimously upheld.

This is a significant decision as the High Court has confirmed the validity of prospective freezing orders, a point previously the subject of some uncertainty in Australia, thereby greatly improving the position of parties seeking security in Australia in respect of foreign proceedings.

Background

In a previous article, we addressed some of the pitfalls of drafting subpoenas and provided some tips and tricks for the drafting of subpoenas (see “The Pitfalls of Subpoenas”). Since that article, the NSW Court of Appeal has addressed the issue again with a timely warning to insurers that improperly drafted subpoenas will be set aside, in whole or in part.

On 14 July 2015, the South Australian District Court in Matthews v The Tap Inn Pty Ltd [2015] SADC 108 handed down a decision whose underlying reasoning could, if applied by superior courts around Australia, broaden the scope for liquidators to pursue unfair preference claims against secured creditors.

The decision

This week’s TGIF considers the recent NSW Supreme Court decision of Westpac Bank v Raflick Sayah [2015] NSWC 1167, provides comfort to banks and their receivers in that it validated the actions of a Receiver who had obtained expert advice on a sale process and had undertaken a thorough process.

THE FACTS