Migrated Security Interests - back in focus!

When the PPSR first started it was immediately populated by a number of registrations representing security interests that had been migrated across from other registers.  

Initially, we were promised that the PPSR would, effectively, absorb the role of 70 national and state registers although, in the end, substantially fewer registers had data moved across.

Unfortunately, the migration exercise was not entirely successful and statutory provisions had to be introduced in order to confer legitimacy on registrations that, in any other circumstances, would have been deemed ineffective.

With the 5^th anniversary of the PPSR, at the end of January 2017, those statutory provisions are scheduled to lapse. 

This means that any PPSR registrations you have that had originally been lodged on an older register will need to be checked to ensure their continued effectiveness.

So what type of problems might there be?

One relatively well publicised issue, when the PPSR first started, revolved around security interests with multiple secured parties.

While an original lodgement on ASIC’s register of company charges might have shown that ABC P/L, DEF P/L and GHI P/L all shared in the same security interest against a debtor/grantor, when transfer to the PPSR took place, only ABC P/L might have been shown as the secured party.  Apparently, some 27,000 registrations are thought to fall in this category!

Another problem arises from the PPSA’s very strict rules regarding how a debtor/grantor should be identified.  

These rules do not necessarily align very well with those used by the original registers.  For example, most registers would not have deemed a Trust as having sufficient legal capacity to grant a security interest and would thus have required any registration to be lodged against the trustee of that trust as opposed to the trust itself.  However, the PPSA pretty much requires registrations to be lodged against the ABN of the trust rather than its trustee.

Similarly, ABNs will have commonly been used to identify corporate grantors on pre-PPSR registers whereas the PPSA requires such to be identified by their ACN, if they have one, or their full legal name if they do not.

Registrations that don’t identify grantors by their proper, PPSA legislated, identifiers are almost certainly likely to be considered ineffective.

The PPSA also has specific rules for identifying motor vehicles, watercraft, aircraft (including various bits of aircraft) and certain intellectual property rights by serial numbers in order to be fully effective.  There will undoubtedly be a great number of instances where those serial numbers were not migrated across from their originating registers.

If you have any security interests that were ‘automatically’ brought across from another register at the start of the PPSR, you only have a matter of weeks left to make sure they meet the PPSA’s requirements before they lose any ‘artificial’ effectiveness the subsequent statutory provisions may have conferred.

Attaching Documents to your PPSR Registration

Firstly, I don't really see the point in lodging documents along with a PPSR registration.  In fact, whenever the PPSR presents you with anything 'optional' it should be interpreted as an opportunity to sabotage your registration!

Completing collateral description fields, for example, is not mandatory, leaving the field blank may be annoying to liquidators but completing it with anything other than a statement that encompasses all you supply (or are ever likely to supply) may mean that you are placing an additional limitation on the collateral to which your security rights will apply.

Similar concerns apply to attaching documents to your registration.  You don't 'need' to attach a document for your registration to be effective, but, having attached a document you then need to ensure it is kept up to date and relevant to your dealings with your grantor for the life of your registration lest it potentially be used against you in restricting your security rights.

Of course, as I've written previously (here), the PPSR is essentially a Notice Filing System rather than a Transaction Filing System and filing documents with your registration tends to just show that you really don't understand the changes that have taken place!  

However, the legal profession loves documents and while there are a great number of lawyers that have a clear and insightful understanding of the PPSR there are probably an even greater number that haven't got to grips with it at all and don't really appreciate the extent to which things have moved on from the old ASIC Register of Company Charges.

Against this background, we were recently asked by one of our clients to lodge a registration for them with a set of documents to be attached.  

Up to this point in time, I'd never paid much attention to the PPSR's attachments function, I knew it was there but I'd never used it.  However, when I went looking, the little button to upload an attachment was nowhere to be found - certainly not where I recall having seen it in the past.

After a frustratingly long time searching, I finally found a reference on the PPSR's website under their 'What Can Be Amended' tab stating:

Note: currently account users are unable to add an attachment to a PPSR registration due to a security update.  This does not impact on the ability to complete new PPSR registrations.

Given that only account users are able to lodge or amend registrations, the distinction that 'account users' as opposed to, simply, 'users' being unable to add attachments seemed a little strange, however, armed with the clue that this related to a security update, I was able to search a little more smartly and eventually found the following statement from the PPSR's Release Management page for 'Release 3':

A security update that is required to maintain the performance of the PPSR will mean users will be unable to add an attachment to a registration. A solution to restore this functionality is being investigated. Please note that this does not impact on the ability to complete new PPSR registrations. 

Release 3 was put into effect in early December 2014.

With almost 2 years having elapsed, I thought I'd write to the PPSR asking them how their investigation into "a solution to restore this functionality" was progressing.

I got an answer this morning advising:

A solution to restore attachment functionality is still being investigated.  No timeframe has been provided.

I can't help but suspect, given that attaching documents to a registration has no positive impact on the effectiveness of that registration, this is not a functionality we will ever see restored, however, I am disappointed that the PPSR are claiming that, already two years into a continuing investigation, there is no indication they've been able to find a solution. Either the claims of an investigation taking place are being grossly exaggerated or the PPSR has been throwing a load of money away on a long-running investigation to restore something that simply isn't necessary.

Unfortunately, I've now gone from not really caring about adding attachments to registrations to being very interested in how this long-running investigation of theirs unfolds!  

Progress of the PPSR Review Report

It's been around 18 months since Bruce Whittaker's final report of the Review of the Personal Property Securities Act was tabled in parliament.  The report made a little under 400 recommendations concerning ways in which the PPSR could be improved - many of which involved substantial simplifications to the registration process.

So, in the absence of any update as to progress in following up the report's recommendations I decided to write to the Attorney General's Department to ask how things were progressing.  In truth, I had almost forgotten I'd done so, but, this afternoon, I received a reply.

I reproduce the body of the reply, in full, below (drafting errors included), but first I'll show you my original request, and leave it to you to judge to what extent the response addresses the request.

My request:

It's been about 18 months since Bruce Whittaker's Final Report of the Review of the Personal Property Securities Act was tabled in Parliament.   

I'd like to know what progress has been made since that time in moving to implement its recommendations, both legislatively and operationally.  I'd also appreciate an indication as to the timetable for implementation.

The AGD's response:

Dear Mr Miller,
  

Thank you for your enquiry regarding the progress of the independent statutory review (the Review) of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (the Act). The Review makes 394 recommendations aimed at reducing complexity and improving the accessibility of both the Act and the Personal Property Securities Register and includes number of recommendations which would reduce the regulatory burden on the equipment hire industry.
  

The Government is working towards implementation of these reforms while ensuring that the rights and interests of all parties are given due consideration. Reform to the Act will have an economy-wide impact and must be executed with due care and diligence. The Act carefully balances the rights of secured parties, lessors and financiers on the one hand, against those of grantors, lessees and borrowers on the other. The response to the Review must be progressed as a comprehensive package rather than in an ad hoc fashion, if it is to achieve the aim of reductions in complexity and regulatory burden without prejudicing the interests of any party.
  

The Attorney-General’s Department hopes to be in a position to provide information about implementation time frames in the near future.

 Thank you again for your enquiry.

Top 5 Registration Errors

I came across an article in ‘Lawyers Weekly’ a couple of days ago, suggesting that more than 80% of businesses listing on the PPSR have made errors that may limit or invalidate their rights.

While this doesn’t really give much idea of the scale of the problem – it certainly isn’t intended to mean that 80% of all registrations are somehow wrong – it clearly reinforces the idea that the PPSR is far more demanding than it should be for a public register.

So, what are the most common errors that businesses are making?

Based, purely on my own observations, the following are the top 5 key problem areas.

Identifying the Grantor – Businesses seem much more comfortable using ABNs than ACNs and attempt to stick them in wherever possible. To the extent that they will treat an ABN and ARBN as one and the same, shoehorning a version of the ABN into a field designed to identify (primarily) overseas companies registered in Australia.

PTY LTD and PTY companies will have an ACN and failing to use that ACN when lodging a registration against them will have serious consequences.

When it comes to the PPSR, there is no such thing as ‘close enough is good enough’.  Grantors must be identified strictly in accordance with the PPSA’s rules.  When a third party wants to find out what security interests exist against a given company, they are guided by the PPSR to search by ACN.  If a search under that company’s ACN does not reveal your security interest it will almost certainly be considered invalid.

Forgetting about the Trust – Unfortunately for those who like simple rules such as “always use a company’s ACN to lodge a registration”, there is an exception where Trusts are involved. 

Where a company is acting as trustee of a trust (and that trust holds an ABN) the registration should be lodged against the ABN of the Trust.  Given that it is possible for a company to purchase both in its own right and in its capacity as a trustee, I tend to advocate lodging a registration against both.

“I don’t understand the question so I’ll leave it blank” – I’m positive that lack of customer reference numbers (or similar) included in registrations has a lot to do with the fact that the PPSR’s chosen term for this is ‘Giving of Notice Identifier’.  It is hard to think of a more awkward, less user-friendly term.  However, while failing to make an entry in GONI won’t cause too much of a problem, leaving the ‘Purchase Money Security Interest’ option blank for the same reason will be a lot more problematic!

Anyone selling subject to a Retention of Title clause, under a consignment stock arrangement, or leasing goods will lose virtually all their much deserved priority should they fail to tick this box.  

Don’t understand the definition of a PMSI?  No worries just tick the box anyway when you’ve got a Retention of Title clause in your terms.

Not taking stock – Even when the terms should be relatively familiar, such as in the case of “Is the collateral Inventory?” we see frequent problems. When asking why a supplier didn’t designate their interest as being over inventory, answers have included, “but it wasn’t inventory, we had to cut it to shape for them”, “we had to order it in specially”, or simply, “I didn’t think it was important”.

Firstly, everything in a PPSR registration is important.  Secondly, if you are selling goods that your buyer is going to be on-selling, using as part of their own end-product for on-sale, or using up in a production process or similar, it will be inventory. Failure to identify it as such could easily mislead a debtor financier or factor into thinking they can take clear title to accounts receivables, for example.  And, under the PPSA, if an error in registration can mislead it will, more than likely, be deemed ineffective.

Processing Proceeds – ROT suppliers are leaving the ‘Are proceeds to be claimed?’ question blank far too frequently.  While they may know what proceeds are, what they may not be aware of is their entitlement to claim proceeds for the on-sale of the goods they have supplied.

As a general rule, if you tick the PMSI box, you should also tick the Proceeds box.

While there are plenty of other opportunities for mistakes to be made (claiming a control of assets you don’t have, poorly thought out collateral descriptions etc), the above certainly represent the conjunction of the most common and most impactful.

Of course, the biggest error would be not to lodge a registration at all!

PPSR & ‘Complicated Scenarios’

During the late 12^th and early 13^th centuries, the then Pope was having some difficulties with what, he deemed to be, heretical Catholics – those whose beliefs were out of step with the orthodox Catholic teachings of the time.  This resulted in some pretty horrific acts, particularly in southern France, and none more so than the massacre at Beziers in July 1209.

The town of Beziers was seen as a stronghold of Catharism (the heretics) but also included a fair-sized population of orthodox Catholics.  When ordered to attack the town, the story goes that a young soldier asked the Pope’s representative, Arnaud Amalric, how he would be able to tell the difference between orthodox Catholics and the heretic Cathars.  The reply has been filtered down through history to us as ‘Kill them all and let God sort them out”.

I feel a little uncomfortable quoting Amalric in a context as mundane as the PPSR but I’ve found myself increasingly resorting to advice along the lines of:

‘When in doubt, lodge a registration’ or

‘It’s better to have a registration you don’t need than need a registration you don’t have’ and 

‘Register them all and let God sort them out’.

Personally, I don’t really like the ‘scatter gun’ approach, I prefer a little more surgical precision, but there comes a point where the issue is not just about being right but also about avoiding getting caught up in expensive, long, drawn out arguments where you need to demonstrate that you are right.

While the PPSR has been with us for well over 4 years now, there is still a surprising lack of legal precedent established and there are a number of areas where argument is commonplace. 

The extent to which a Transitional registration is still appropriate despite minor amendments to terms & conditions; when is it appropriate to register against a Trust and when against the trustee of that trust; and to what extent a PMSI registration can also perfect a non-PMSI element are just a few of the more contentious areas.

In a recent question that was put to me, a client is trading with a buying group where invoices will be paid by one entity and yet goods will be delivered to, and on-sold by, a number of separate, albeit, related entities.  Who should the registration be lodged against?

Without going into the specific terms, my advice was, effectively, two-fold:

1. You register against the entity, or entities, that have demonstrably accepted your retention of title clause; and
2. Register against them all – at least one of the registrations is bound to be right!

The second response isn’t one I’m particularly proud of, but suppliers regularly face complicated scenarios such as these and legal advice can be expensive.  A PPSR registration, on the other hand, will cost as little as $6.80.  

Not sure which of 10 companies to register against?  

Asking a law firm to check your agreements and advise, will result in an expenditure of anything up to $1000; by comparison, lodging a registration against each of the 10 companies, just to be on the safe side, will cost $68.

And, as I suggested earlier, just because you’ve had legal advice, probably very good legal advice, doesn’t mean you won’t still get an argument from a liquidator who believes they have received equally good legal advice.

Is there a downside to multiple registrations in such circumstances?

The PPSA allows for appeals to be made by Grantors that believe a registration is unreasonable but, for any penalties or claim for damages to be made against the registering supplier, it would need to be demonstrated that the supplier didn’t have a ‘reasonable belief’ that the registration would be appropriate.  Again, there are no legal precedents that help us very much here, but, the more complicated the scenario, the more difficult it would be to demonstrate that the supplier’s registrations were not a reasonable response to a complex situation.

So, while I don’t particularly want to align myself with a 13^th century, blood-thirsty religious fanatic, my advice may often be ‘Register them all and let God sort them out’.

PPSR & Preference Claims

I hadn’t realised until recently how long it’s been since I’d posted on the subject of (Unfair) Preference Claims.

However, there have been some developments since that time, including a particularly interesting legal judgement recently, and an update is appropriate.

For a refresh on the basics, you can find my earlier post here.

In this post, I’m going to be looking at:

• The standing of a Retention of Title clause when it comes to determining whether a payment was secured or not; and
• The Corporations Act’s problem with Transitional security interests.

New light was potentially shed on the options for mounting a defence against a liquidators’ preference claim in Justice Edelman’s ruling in Hussain v CSR Building Products Limited regarding the payments made by FPJ Group Pty Ltd.

The ruling runs to some 248 numbered paragraphs and covers many aspects of the standard preference claim defence available to suppliers – running account, good faith and the test for insolvency – but what concerns us here is the Judge’s conclusions regarding the role an unregistered Retention of Title clause played in determining whether the supplier, CSR, received payments in respect of an “unsecured debt”.

Justice Edelman found that there were sufficient references in the Corporations Act to a Retention of Title right being, in substance, a form of security that, while in the circumstances CSR may not satisfy the definition of a ‘secured creditor’, their Retention of Title right was sufficient to render the debt they were owed ‘not unsecured’.

It will be interesting to see to what extent this view is allowed to stand unchallenged because it certainly seems to run counter to a line liquidators have been taking with the, apparent, support of section 51 of the Corporations Act.

Section 51 is one of the relatively recent additions to the Corporations Act brought in to harmonise with the introduction of the PPSA. It’s a very short section and states:

“ In this Act:"PPSA security interest " (short for Personal Property Securities Act security interest) means a security interest within the meaning of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 and to which that Act applies, other than a transitional security interest within the meaning of that Act.”

Effectively, the Corporations Act is acknowledging that the holder of a security interest that is recognised as such under the PPSA will be deemed to be a secured creditor.  But it also goes on to say ‘except for transitional security interests’.

While this aspect of the Corporations Act does not impact upon a creditor’s status when pursuing outstandings upon the appointment of a liquidator, it has been used to impact upon a supplier’s rights to retain alleged preferential payments.

When a supplier seeks to defend themselves against a liquidator’s preference claim by asserting they were a secured creditor, the liquidator will, invariably, reject the defence on the basis that their PPSR registration was lodged as ‘Transitional’.

This has given rise to a widespread call from intermediaries, brokers, and other assorted advisors, that suppliers should lodge fresh non-transitional registrations to secure their interests.

While this may not hurt (and may improve a supplier’s chances of a successful outcome) there is an element of confusing the wrapping for the gift. 

The Corporations Act does not exclude security interests registered as transitional; it excludes security interests that are transitional.  Registering an interest as non-transitional does not suddenly make that underlying interest non-transitional just as attempting to perfect a non-transitional security interest with a transitional registration will not meet with success.

So, while transitional registrations are to liquidators as red rags are to bulls, putting non-transitional registrations in place will certainly be a good idea, for liquidators who take the trouble to look closely, they may not be sufficient.

However, for those liquidators, there is always the ruling of Justice Edelman to fall back on!

Is that it? (Notice Filing System vs Transaction Filing System)

Once they get past the PPSR’s jargon of purchase money security interests, giving of notice identifiers, subordinated registrations etc, many of my trade credit clients have something of an ‘is that it?’ reaction. They’d been gearing themselves up to having to list part numbers and order references only to find that simply choosing the collateral class category of ‘Other Goods’ was pretty much all that was required. Understandably, there’s an element of anti-climax and concern that they should be doing more when it comes to describing the goods/collateral involved.

The answer to their concerns, to my way of thinking, rests very much in the nature of the register that the PPSR was set up to be. 

Prior to the PPSR, company security interests were registered on the ASIC Register of Company Charges.  The ASIC register acted as a Transaction filing system, whereby the document that acted as the security interest was filed in its entirety – a 30 to 40 page Registered Charge document signed by both parties being the most common.

Although the PPSR replaced ASIC’s register, the PPSR has been established as a Notice filing system whereby the secured party is merely required to announce that it has a security interest (or is likely to have a security interest).  The actual security interest – usually represented for trade credit suppliers by a Retention of Title clause in their terms and conditions – would need to be kept separately and brought out at any time evidence is required that the security interest asserted by the registration on the PPSR actually existed.

The registration on the PPSR, therefore, does not define the security interest or the collateral to which it applies, but instead merely needs to describe it in a manner that would provide an indication as to its nature for interested third parties.  Where the ASIC register stored 40 page documents, the PPSR stores the equivalent of an electronic post-it note.

Thus, when a supplier lodges a registration perfecting their Retention of Title security interest, they are putting others on notice that they have an interest, the precise details of which may be separately available from them in response to any third party enquiry – such as might be required from an insolvency practitioner should the customer fall over.

When a liquidator (or similar) is appointed to a company, they will conduct a search of the PPSR to see who is asserting they have a security interest.  They will then write to each of these asking for the evidence that such an interest exists and is consistent with the general description provided by their lodgement on the PPSR.  It is at this point that suppliers will need to detail the specific items of collateral to which their security interest applies and provide evidence of the relevant acceptance by the customer of their security rights.

Specific serial numbers are only required to be provided as part of a PPSR registration when that registration concerns motor vehicles, watercraft, aircraft and certain other weird and wonderful types of collateral such as Intellectual property patents and plant breeders’ rights.

Inserting serial numbers in Collateral description fields of ‘Other Goods’ registrations may be of some assistance to a liquidator in identifying specific stock – although promptly providing that information separately upon request would be just as helpful – but can create a rod for suppliers’ backs in as much as any typo or omission would render the effectiveness of that registration subject to challenge.  It would also take the supplier down the path of having to either lodge multiple registrations every time a fresh delivery was made or constantly amending existing registrations – an administrative burden I’m sure they could do without.

If a security interest is in the form of an accepted Retention of Title clause then an ‘Other Goods’ registration, describing the collateral as that supplied by the secured party and the interest as a Purchase Money Security Interest (PMSI) should be sufficient, if registered in a timely fashion, to secure a supplier’s rights to those goods until such time as they have been fully paid for and assure the supplier of a higher ranking interest over those goods than any other creditor in the event the customer falls insolvent.

How much is your security worth?

There has been much talk regarding the opportunities presented by a PPSR registration to mount a defence against a preference claim from a liquidator.

While I’ve already written on this here, something that I had not previously considered a contentious issue seems to have become one.

First a quick recap…

A trade credit supplier, with a PPSR registration perfecting a retention of title over unpaid-for goods, will be deemed to be a secured creditor to the value of those unpaid-for goods that remain in the possession of the buyer. 

Thus, if I supply $10,000 worth of widgets to my buyer today, my security will be worth $10,000 (presumably a figure equivalent to what I am owed).  However, by next week when my buyer has on-sold $2,000 of those widgets, my available security will only be worth $8,000, regardless as to how much I am actually still owed.  If, by the time I eventually get paid the $10,000 my buyer owes me, he only has, say, $1,000 worth of my stock in his possession then a liquidator, pursuing a preferential payment claim, might argue that, at the time I received the $10,000 payment, I received 90% of that payment as an unsecured creditor. 

Under the Corporations Act, unsecured creditors in receipt of payments made during the 6 months prior to the relevant date of insolvency may be obliged to return that money to the liquidator.  The value of my security at the time I received my payment is therefore of paramount importance.

However, while calculating the value of security at the time a payment was made may not always be easy, I thought it was nevertheless relatively uncontentious that the appropriate time to assess the value of the security was, indeed at the time the alleged preferential payment was made.

Last year, a South Australian District Court, in the case of Matthews v The Tap Inn P/L, was asked to rule upon whether the value of a security should be assessed at the time the security interest was created or at the time winding up commenced.  No obvious consideration appears to have been directed at whether such an assessment should take place at the time disputed payments were actually made!

In July 2015 Justice Chivell handed down his ruling that the appropriate time for determining the value of a security was at the winding up stage – largely on the basis that this would bring about a semblance of parity with the plight of other creditors.

While this may have been good news for liquidators it created a ludicrous scenario for trade credit suppliers and we all looked with some trepidation to the inevitable appeal.

Well, the result of the appeal is now available and some semblance of sanity has been restored.

The appeal court, while overturning Justice Chivell’s ruling, nevertheless did so without actually saying that His Honour was incorrect but rather it determined that, with other facts in the case being disputed by the parties, it was inappropriate for the judge to have ruled on what would therefore have amounted to a hypothetical question. Ruling on hypotheticals is, apparently, a bit of a 'no no'.

So, we are effectively back to where we started before the original court decision, with no legal precedent established as to when an appropriate point in time might be to calculate the value of a security interest supporting an alleged preferential payment.  The only difference being, I suppose, is that liquidators have now had the opportunity to read up on an argument that was sufficient to sway a judge in South Australia – and that argument has yet to be effectively countered.

I’d be surprised if this is the last we hear on this issue.

GE vs Forge Group (aka APR Energy vs KordaMentha)

The 11^th February saw a decision handed down in the NSW Supreme Court in the battle between the receivers of the Forge Group (KordaMentha) and the US-based, General Electric International Inc over KordaMentha’s claim to gas turbines totalling $50 million.

I've already written here concerning the outcry from US business and politics regarding the matter, now we get to hear the court's view.

In case you haven’t already read elsewhere, I won’t keep you on tenterhooks, the decision represented a victory for KordaMentha. 

Justice Hammerschlag ruled that the absence of a PPSA registration in respect of turbines leased by GE to Forge Group under an agreement in March 2013 meant that title to those turbines vested in Forge Group upon their insolvency the following March. Put simply, a win for the receivers, who get an extra $50 million in assets to play with, and a loss for the American company that actual holds (held) title to the property.

While there will no doubt be more than a few headlines hailing this as a ‘victory for the PPSA’, the legal argument was a little more nuanced.

The issue before the court concerned some technicalities of the PPSA, and the right provided by the Act for PPSA security interests to be vested in the insolvent company was never actually in dispute.

GE instead chose a two-pronged argument:

• That the goods represented fixtures (the PPSA explicitly does not apply to fixtures); and
• That GE, while having leased the turbines, was a company not regularly engaged in the business of leasing goods (the PPSA also does not apply to leases in such circumstances).

On the matter of fixtures, J Hammerschlag found that the weight of evidence made it clear that, not only was there no intention that the turbines become fixtures but, their very nature (designed to be demobilised and moved to another site, quickly and in a short time, there was an obligation for the turbines to be returned at the end of the lease period, that the turbines could be removed at a relatively low cost without damage to either the land or the turbines themselves etc) meant that they should not be deemed fixtures for the purposes of the Act.

As to whether GE was regularly engaged in the business of leasing, this was relatively easily confirmed by a simple review of GE’s leasing history.  This confirmed that from 2003 to the present time GE had been no stranger to leasing its equipment, that it was a “proper component” of their business and conducted with sufficient repetitiveness to satisfy the court that their leasing arrangement with Forge fell under the auspices of the PPSA.

Therefore, not so much a victory for the PPSA as much as it is a victory for the PPSA’s definitions.

Those wanting to read up on the case in detail can find the full judgement at this link.

Clive Palmer vs the PPSA

I’ve just read an 'excited' article by The Australian, entitled “Clive Palmer firms jump queue of creditors for Queensland Nickel” which you can read here (although you may get caught out by The Australian’s paywall).

The meat of the article concerns the ‘last minute’ registration on the PPSR of security interests against Queensland Nickel by companies in which Clive Palmer has an interest.

“Four days before Clive Palmer’s Queensland Nickel Industries collapsed into voluntary administration, two of his companies staked a claim on all of the refinery’s assets in an apparent attempt to squeeze out redundant workers and other creditors.”

The article goes on to say that,

“Legal experts said the manoeuvre could disadvantage sacked workers, already furious at being denied access to their redundancy entitlements.”

Apparently, The Australian and its ‘legal experts’ are not especially familiar with the workings of the PPSA or the Corporations Act once insolvency practitioners become involved.

Firstly, any creditor who had lodged a security interest on the PPSR prior to Palmer’s recent registrations will benefit from greater priority under the PPSA (at least a dozen of which were registered under the facilities that I personally oversee).

But, perhaps more importantly, in the context of The Australian’s article, are the implications of the Corporations Act for security interests registered within 6 months of a company failure.

While I’ve previously explored this at some length in my post ‘The PPSA vs The Corporations Act’, the short version is that 588FL of the Corporations Act provides a very clear deadline by which a registration needs to be lodged in order to be effective against a liquidator.

If a registration was not lodged within 20 business days of the security interest coming into force or was lodged during the 6 months leading up to the liquidator’s appointment, then “The PPSA security interest vests in the company” and the creditor’s security rights are effectively lost.

So, while opportunistic, last minute registrations may make for a relatively entertaining news story, they don’t make for very effective security.