The importance of security holders accurately registering their interest on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) to create a valid, enforceable interest is constantly emphasised in commentary and cases. It is accepted that an error in a grantor’s identifier is likely to be fatal to a PPSR registration¹, often resulting in a creditor’s unperfected interest vesting in a company upon it entering administration or liquidation. However, a recent decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court illustrates that a defective registration may be cured without losing priority.

A recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal (handed down on 14 July 2016) highlights a number of areas in which conflicts can arise in a commercial transaction involving multiple secured parties and the extent to which the interests of lower-ranked secured parties need to be considered when the proceeds are dealt with.

The case - Nom de Plume

BACKGROUND

Administrators were appointed to a company and as a result, the company entered into a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA). 

After the DOCA had been entered into, a secured creditor who had abstained from voting on the decision of whether the company should enter into the DOCA, purported to appoint an administrator under its security. 

The deed administrators sought a declaration from the Court that the second administration should be terminated (amongst other things). 

DECISION

This week’s TGIF considers the circumstances in which a resolution passed at a creditor’s meeting will be set aside on the basis that it is contrary to the interests of creditors as a whole.

Background

Key Points:

A DOCA can extinguish claims under a guarantee, even where those claims arise following the DOCA's termination.

If the underlying debt has already been extinguished by a DOCA, can a secured creditor still enforce the charge? A recent case explored the role of section 444D(2) of the Corporations Act in this situation, with implications for parties seeking to rely on guarantees from companies that have been through a DOCA (Australian Gypsum Industries Pty Ltd v Dalesun Holdings Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 95).

Liquidators are subject to rights and duties under common law and the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (CA).

Introduction

In Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2014] HCA 15, the High Court of Australia recently delivered a decision which has confirmed the priority of a Liquidator’s lien over the interests of a secured creditor.

The facts

Obtain advice before you lodge a proof of debt or vote in a liquidation

Secured creditors should remember that submitting a proof of debt and voting in a liquidation may result in the loss of their security if they get it wrong.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales has delivered a timely reminder to secured creditors of a company in liquidation, where the secured creditor lost its security because it submitted a proof of debt for the full amount of its debt and voted on a poll at a creditor’s meeting for its full debt.

The recent decision of the Federal Court in the matter of Divitkos, in the matter of ExDVD Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2014] FCA 696 confirms that where a receiver is required to make a payment under Section 433 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) to a priority creditor (such as employee entitlements), the secured creditor (who appointed the receiver) may be entitled to be subrogated to the rights of that priority creditor in the winding up of the company.

The Law