Receivers are often faced with the dilemma of goods in their possession which are not readily identifiable as “property of the corporation” pursuant to section 420 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (CA). Selling or disposing of assets that are not property of the company may make receivers liable for the loss or conversion of such goods. Therefore, it is important that receivers identify the property of the company correctly.

In the recent decision of Pt Bayan Resources TBK v BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd [2014] WASCA 178, the Western Australian Court of Appeal unanimously found that the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (RSC) were valid insofar as they empower the Court to ‘freeze’ local assets ahead of a possible foreign judgment.

In the decision of Re Arcabi Pty Ltd (Receivers & Managers Appointed) (in liq) [2014] WASC 310 the court considered:

• the application of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) to goods being held on a bailment or consignment basis by a company in receivership and liquidation; and
• the receivers’ rights to be indemnified for costs and expenses related to investigating and protecting the property of third parties.

What is the significance?

A recent decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia highlights the importance of properly registering security interests under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).

The recent WA Supreme Court decision in White v Spiers Earthworks Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 139, highlights the consequences of not registering a security interest under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (PPSA) when a company becomes insolvent.

The case also provides guidance about certain PPSA savings provisions, the treatment of transitional security interests and the primacy of PPSA over pre-PPSA legislation.

BACKGROUND

In the case of Bosi Security Services Ltd v Wright [2013] WASC 431, in which the court granted an interlocutory injunction preventing the sale of land by receivers despite acknowledging that the applicants’ case under the Trade Practices Act and Australian Consumer Law was not a strong one and had obvious deficiencies.

Facts

After nearly 20 years, the long running Bell litigation is almost over, with the Supreme Court of Western Australia having approved the settlement between the liquidators of the Bell group of companies and the syndicate of banks involved in the litigation (Re Bell Group (In Liq); Ex Parte Antony Leslie John Wooding as Liquidator of the Bell Group Ltd (In Liq) [2013] WASC 409).

BACKGROUND

BACKGROUND

The company P Hindle & Co Pty Ltd (WA) was placed in liquidation in 2008. Mr Huxtable was appointed as liquidator of the company (Liquidator). The Liquidator acted as chairperson at a meeting of creditors in late 2010 where 4 out of a potential 161 creditors attended.

There is a recognised ambiguity in the transitional provisions of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA),relating to the issue of whether an ‘umbrella agreement’, governing the supply of goods on retention of title (RoT) terms entered into prior to 30 January 2012, will be an effective transitional security interest.

Taxpayers in Western Australia have been left to foot the bill after Jirsch Sutherland, liquidator for the Kimberley Diamond Company Pty Ltd (“KDC”), used a legal loophole to handball expensive mining leases back to the Department of Mines and Petroleum (“DMP”).

Care and maintenance costs for KDC’s Ellendale diamond mine amount to $100,000 (AUD) a month and environmental rehabilitation obligations are estimated to be $40 million (AUD). The DMP has been servicing these costs since KDC went into liquidation.