What to do when your customer goes bust!

While it would be great if lodging a registration on the PPSR actually stopped your customer from going insolvent, that’s probably a little too much to expect from a $6 registration.  However, your registration will give you an important leg up in trying to recover something from the inevitable mess caused by the insolvency – specifically, any money you are owed for unpaid for goods.

Your first action (after putting a hold on any future deliveries) should be to write to the insolvency practitioner.  If you haven’t already got it, you can find contact information for the liquidators via ASIC .  Although you can write a letter, it is probably best if you use email.

Your email needs to put the liquidator on notice that you are owed money and that you want your recovery rights to be respected.  You will also want to start the process of gathering information to ensure any value you are able to recover is maximised.

You will, therefore, need to include:

·         A statement of account showing what is owed and/or outstanding.

·         A listing/description of what goods have been supplied (including any information that might help the liquidator identify the goods on a factory/warehouse floor).

·         A copy of your Terms & Conditions clearly showing your security rights (usually a Retention of Title clause) and some indication that the insolvent company actually accepted those terms – most commonly a copy of the Credit Application completed by the company.

·         A copy of your PPSR registration (the Verification Statement) – the registration number would probably be sufficient as the liquidator will, as a matter of course, obtain details of all the registrations lodged against the insolvent company.

·         A request for an urgent stocktake of your goods held at the insolvent company’s premises (or anywhere else where they may be being held on the company’s behalf).

·         A request for access to the company’s premises to identify any goods you have supplied. And

·         A demand that the liquidator ensure that any sales of your goods be put on hold and not go ahead without your express consent in writing.

It is important to remember that, even though you may not want your goods back – perhaps they have been specially made or adapted for this one customer – you still need to assert your right to recover them so as to maintain leverage over a liquidator who may well want to sell them as part of an end product to maximise income from the company’s assets. Unless you wash your hands of them, the liquidator will need your permission to deal with those goods and therein lies the opportunity for a deal to be made.

Have you sold tyres to a trucking company?  Getting used tyres back may not be a particularly attractive idea for you, but a liquidator will have a much better chance of making a profitable sale of vehicles with tyres than without.  If the liquidator wants to sell trucks with your tyres on them, your registration gives you the opportunity to insist that the liquidator pays you what you are owed out of the sale proceeds.

Is a PPSR registration still necessary to defend against Preference claims?

In June 2016, I posted an article discussing, among other things, Justice Edelman’s ruling in Hussain v CSR Building products Limited concerning alleged preference payments made by FPJ Group Pty Ltd. 

The Corporations Act allows liquidators to claim back payments made by the insolvent company during the 6 months prior to their appointment – provided that those payments were in respect of an unsecured debt.

In Hussein v CSR,  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’.  This, against the background of CSR not having registered their ROT on the PPSR!

This was a pretty controversial decision at the time but, two years later, we’ve finally got ourselves another judgment effectively reinforcing the idea that a Retention of Title right (whether registered on the PPSR or not) represents sufficient security to ensure that payments made against that security right are not treated as unsecured for the purposes of the Corporations Act.

Trenfield v HAG Import Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd [2018] QDC 107 wasn’t an entire success for the supplier, however, because even though their ROT was sufficient to make payments eligible for consideration as being ‘not unsecured’, the question as to how much value in payments those ROT rights actually supported needed to be addressed. 

If a supplier sends goods worth $10,000 and invoices accordingly, at ‘day 1’ the supplier (assuming an ROT) will be secured for the full amount owed, however, if, by the time payment falls due $8,000 of those goods have been on-sold, then the supplier will only be a secured creditor for $2,000 of the money owed and an unsecured creditor for the balance. (Note: there's an earlier post looking at the 'value' of security here.)

Using this approach, the Court found that $473,291 of the $696,298.72 of payments received were paid in relation to an unsecured debt and thus were recoverable by the liquidators as the fruits of an unfair preference.

With both legal precedents involving ROTs that were not perfected under the PPSA’s rules, there is a lifeline for suppliers who either haven’t registered on the PPSR or lodged too late or with serious errors – at least as far as defending against preference claims is concerned. 

When it comes to attempting to recover unpaid for goods or their equivalent value from administrators and liquidators, suppliers had best make sure they have a valid PPSR registration in place (lodged in good time) because claiming that their ROT makes them ‘not unsecured’ will not cut it!

Protecting Your Gear On Site

February saw the collapse of WA based builder Cooper & Oxley accompanied by scenes of subcontractors climbing over fences and evading security guards in order to attempt to recover tools and equipment that they had left on project sites.  You can find an example here.

Since then, there has been an understandable increase in advice being offered to subcontractors as to how they might be able to protect themselves.  What has been less understandable, however, is the oft-repeated suggestion that a registration on the PPSR might act as some sort of golden ticket allowing a subcontractor to recover any of their gear they might have had stored on site.

If you are selling goods subject to a right to recover those goods if you’re not paid for them, then a registration on the PPSR is essential if you want to be able to exercise that right against a liquidator or administrator etc.  Similarly, if you are engaged in a long-term hire of goods (and by long, I mean at least 2 years) then, again, registration is essential to protect those goods from falling into the hands of an Insolvency Practitioner. 

However, such leasing arrangements and conditional sale agreements are specifically deemed to create security interests under the PPSA; simply storing your tools on a building site overnight is not.

When a company goes into liquidation, the liquidator is entitled to treat any property that is used as collateral in a security interest as having vested in the insolvent company and thus available to be liquidated for the benefit of creditors.  The only real exception to this is where that collateral/security interest has been registered on the PPSR.

 

Because a subcontractor’s tools are not the subject of a sale (conditional or otherwise) to the insolvent company and are not being leased to them, the liquidator has no right to treat them as if they were the property of the main contractor. If they're not collateral in a security interest, there's no danger of them vesting in the insolvent company.

If that is the case, why do we read about subcontractors and tradies being locked out of sites, unable to recover their tools?

One of the first jobs a liquidator needs to do, on arrival, is to take stock and evaluate what assets the company might hold.  They can’t do this effectively (or fairly) if there is a steady stream of people marching onto the site and walking off with whatever property they can lay their hands on – some of it may well be their own but some of it may be the company’s and some may actually belong to other subcontractors.

In this sense, the liquidator is a little like the coroner arriving at the site of a freshly discovered body in popular American TV shows.  Their first job is to protect the integrity of the crime scene and then, gradually, determine to what extent the items found in and around that scene were relevant to the body and the means by which it came to be dead.  If you happen to have lost your car keys in that area, it will be understandable if you have to wait a while before you can get them back!

And so it is with a liquidator, they’ll need to ensure they can identify what goods belonged to the company and what belonged to subcontractors and then they’ll need to ensure that the right gear is made available to the right subcontractor.  To do this properly will, unfortunately, take time.  

From subcontractors I’ve spoken to, while the delay in getting their gear back is extremely frustrating, they do eventually get their stuff back and, if they don’t, it’s invariably because it had been taken by another subcontractor trying to grab what they could, presumably, in an attempt to offset money owed to them by the company.

Not only is a registration on the PPSR not necessary and will do nothing for the rights of the subcontractor in recovering their tools, it may even create confusion, leading to further delays in the subcontractor being reunited with their gear.

There’s been a suggestion that, while it won’t be perfecting a security interest, a PPSR registration might nevertheless serve as some sort of ownership document ‘proving’ that certain tools belong to the particular subcontractor.

Given that a PPSR registration can be lodged by anyone, for anything against anybody so long as they have a credit card with an available balance of at least $6.80 and that there’s no checking or verification that its details bear any relationship to reality, there is absolutely no way that a liquidator is going to accept a PPSR registration along these lines at face value.

Liquidators spend large amounts of their time picking holes in, and generally finding fault in, PPSR registrations and will not be convinced by a registration that, effectively, says that “a box of spanners and a hammer with a red handle” are owned by a particular tradie.  Even being able to identify tools by serial numbers won’t be treated as any evidence of ownership.

If proving ownership is the issue, it will be far more effective simply to have your name inscribed/labelled on the tool than to have it registered on the PPSR.

In short, while suppliers selling goods on Retention of Title terms, and hire companies, hiring goods on a long-term basis would be foolish not to register their interests on the PPSR, it would be foolish for subcontractors and tradies, looking to protect their tools, to think that a PPSR registration would be of any help.

Dangers for the Unwary when Trading with an Administrator

While this post might be of passing interest to those wanting to refresh their knowledge regarding the Corporations Act’s intersection with the PPSA, it’s main import is for those who may be invited to trade with a company under administration.

I wrote on the subject of late registrations being vulnerable to vesting by insolvency practitioners in The PPSA vs The Corporations Act, but a new spin on the issue has arisen following a judgement in Re Ten Network Holdings Ltd (Administrators Appointed)(Receivers & Managers Appointed) [2017] FCA 1144 that highlights a further problem with this aspect of the Corporations Act.

By way of a very brief recap, if you fail to register your security interest within 20 business days of your security agreement being entered into AND your buyer goes into external administration within the following 6 months, Section 588FL of the Corporations Act allows the insolvency practitioner to ignore your security interest.

However, 588FL also provides for vesting of a supplier’s security interest where it arises (and is subject to a registration) AFTER the appointment of an insolvency practitioner.

While it might be understandable for clearly late registrations to be ignored, what about those situations where a supplier is invited to supply goods to the buyer after it has been placed into administration?

Not all companies that go into administration end up being liquidated, many, given some temporary relief by the appointment of an administrator, are able to trade out of their problems, perhaps subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA).  However, under the provisions of s588FL any supplier entering into an agreement to supply won’t be able to lodge an effective PPSR registration to perfect their Retention of Title (ROT) rights because such rights (and registration) arose after the appointment of the insolvency practitioner.  Thus, if the company turns out to be unable to trade out of its problems, and the administrator becomes a liquidator, the supplier’s ROT rights will end up being vested with the insolvent estate.

Not exactly a ‘fair’ outcome for the supplier.

However, all is not lost as the Corporations Act (section 588FM) allows the Courts to extend the date beyond the ‘critical date’ for a valid PPSR registration provided it would be “just and equitable” to do so.

The recent Ten Network judgement suggests that the Courts will be prepared to grant such an extension provided they can be reassured that to do so would be in the best interests of both the other creditors and the company in administration. 

It has also been suggested that the timing of the application for the order will be relevant, in that the time to apply for the extension (and lodge the registration) should be a great deal closer to the commencement of trading than to any eventual liquidation.

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.

Cross-Collateralisation of PMSIs

One of the more easily missed of the PPSA Review Report recommendations compiled by Bruce Whittaker concerns the ‘cross-collateralisation of PMSIs’.

For trade credit suppliers still coming to terms with the concept of PMSIs, the idea that these can be cross-collateralised might be a step too far too soon.  However, rather than simply causing eyes to glaze over this could well be very good news for trade credit suppliers who simply want to make their Retention of Title (ROT) clauses as effective as possible.

In order to put the recommendation in its proper context we’ll need to briefly revisit the ROT in a pre-PPSA environment.

At its simplest the ROT will be a provision in a supplier’s terms of trade that states that their buyer won’t get title to the goods being supplied until those goods have been fully paid for.

Over time the ‘simple’ ROT was gradually enhanced to allow for on-sale and for on-sale receipts to be ring-fenced for the suppliers benefit; to allow the supplier rights to enter the buyer’s premises to recover goods etc; and, eventually, to provide that, not only would title remain with the supplier until those goods were paid for but also that title would remain with the supplier until all monies owed by the buyer to the supplier had been paid regardless of how those outstandings had arisen.  Thus was born the All Monies Clause.

The All Monies Clause would allow a supplier, with outstanding debt, to recover their product from an insolvent buyer regardless as to whether that specific product had been paid for or not.

Fast forward to the introduction of the PPSA and its priority rules. The PPSA determined that priority of competing security interests should be decided by the date that security interest was registered on the PPSR – the earlier the registration the higher the priority. The exception to this was the creation of the Purchase Money Security Interest (PMSI) which, effectively, created a super priority in cases where the collateral being used as security was securing its own purchase price. In other words, an ROT arrangement would be given a super priority over other competing security interests regardless as to how much earlier those other interests might have been registered.

However, although a ‘simple’ ROT clause would meet the criteria for PMSI treatment, what about the All Monies clause?  Under the All Monies clause the goods delivered by the supplier were not just being used as security for their own purchase price they were also being used as security for any other outstanding debt the buyer owed to the supplier!  So while a security interest could be registered for the All Monies clause it would not merit the PPSA’s PMSI/super priority status and would have to ‘fight it out’ with competing security interests held by other creditors, many of whom may well have registered earlier.

The situation is further complicated where the supplier’s product is such that paid-for goods delivered last month might be completely indistinguishable from unpaid-for goods delivered last week – while the security over the unpaid-for goods has super priority, the All Monies interest over the paid-for goods does not. Do the few remaining goods on the buyer’s warehouse floor represent goods that had been paid for or goods that had not?  Unless the supplier is able to demonstrate that those specific goods had not been paid for they are likely to lose their super priority claim over them.

This is the scenario that the Review Report’s recommendation addresses – why should an unpaid supplier fail in their bid to exercise their properly registered and perfected security interest simply because paid-for goods and unpaid-for goods are indistinguishable?  This is the concept behind the ‘cross-collateralisation of PMSIs’ and although it isn’t intended to apply where there are no problems in distinguishing paid-for goods from unpaid-for goods it will make a big difference to suppliers of a more homogenous product or where serial numbers do not appear in invoices/delivery notes etc.

While there is no indication of any timetable for even discussing Bruce Whittaker's report recommendations let alone implementing them, delving into his proposals is an excellent way of getting a better understanding of the current operation/interpretation of the PPSA.

The PPSA vs The Corporations Act

September’s court judgement in Pozzebon (Trustee) v Australian Gaming and Entertainment Ltd (in liq) has brought to the fore a butting of heads between the Personal Property Securities Act and the Corporations Act.

Much of our concern with the PPSA has been to do with interpreting it in such a way as to ensure that our security interests are as effective as possible.  The issue can be seen as twofold:

• Ensuring our security interests benefit from as high a ranking as possible when compared with those interests of other creditors; and
• Protecting ourselves against the risk that an unperfected security interest will vest in our debtor’s insolvent estate.

Part 2.6 of the PPSA (sections 54 to 77) concerns itself with addressing the various scenarios that might rank one creditor’s interest above another’s while section 267 provides liquidators with the incentive to try to invalidate your registration by allowing them to take ‘ownership’ of any security interests that have not been properly perfected.

For now, we’re going to look a little more closely at section 267.

Section 267 effectively states that, when an ‘external administration event’ takes place, any security interest that has not been perfected at that point will vest in the grantor.  In other words, if an insolvency practitioner is appointed to your debtor before you’ve had the opportunity to register your security interest on the PPSR, you will lose your rights to whatever collateral you had under that interest.  In fact, the PPSA appears, almost, to be supporting a ‘nick of time’ registration approach.  Providing you get your registration lodged before the administrator is appointed (or the application for winding up submitted, or the sequestration order given etc) your interest should be perfected and thus protected from the nasty section 267.

Unfortunately, buried within s267 is a little bit of small print as follows:

Note 2:   See also Division 2A of Part 5.7B of the Corporations Act 2001.

Surely that’s not going to be too important?  After all, Note 1 was pretty innocuous (Note 1: For the meaning of company, see section 10).  How bad could Division 2A of Part 5.7B of the Corporations Act be?

Well, it turns out that Division 2A can be pretty bad!

The meat of Division 2A is in section 588FL, entitled “Vesting of PPSA security interests if collateral not registered within time”.  It turns out that, contrary to the apparent ‘nick of time’ support of the PPSA, there is, in fact, a much more tangible deadline by which a registration needs to be lodged in order to keep your collateral out of the hands of a liquidator.

If your registration was not lodged within 20 business days of your security interest coming into force and was lodged during the 6 months leading up to the liquidator’s appointment, then “The PPSA security interest vests in the company” and you lose your collateral to the liquidator!

So, even though you have a properly perfected security interest, registered correctly, within the deadlines set under the PPSA, the liquidator may still be able to ignore that registration and take your goods anyway by virtue of the Corporations Act.

And if, for a moment, you are thinking that this must just be a theoretical argument that wouldn’t apply in real life, then let me remind you that this piece started with reference to Pozzebon (Trustee) v Australian Gaming and Entertainment Ltd (in liq).

• In December 2013 the Pozzebons loaned Australian Gaming and Entertainment Ltd (AGEL) $250,000 with the loan secured against AGEL’s personal property.
• On 19 May 2014 the Pozzebons registered their security interest on the PPSR.
• On 26 May 2014 Administrators were appointed to AGEL with liquidators following some 2 weeks later.

While the Pozzebons may have beaten the clock in terms of the PPSA they fell foul of the Corporations Act and breached the 20 business days’ time limit under 588FL as well as the registration being within 6 months of the external administration ‘event’.  Such was the judgement of Justice Collier towards the end of September in rejecting the Pozzebon claim that their security interest be honoured.

By way of summary, I've drawn up the following flow chart to show how important the timing of a PPSR registration will be under the Corporations Act:

Someone else has possession of my goods; do I need to lodge a PPSR registration against them?

Given the number of statements we’ve seen suggesting that the PPSA ‘completely changes our concept of ownership’ and the horror stories revolving around legal owners losing their property, it is quite natural to explore all the possibilities when it comes to protecting your property under the PPSA.  Should I be lodging a PPSA registration each time my property leaves my possession?

If you are renting warehouse space, if you are having your goods transported by an independent haulier, if you are locating your IT infrastructure off-site, should you be lodging a registration?

The PPSA lists a number of circumstances that may give rise to a security interest where one would not otherwise think in terms of traditional ‘security interests’.  The most common examples for us are, of course, retention of title clauses, consignment stock arrangements and leases; however, under this last category, the PPSA actually uses the term PPS Lease.

A PPS Lease may be a lease or bailment of goods for a year or more or for an indefinite period (section 13 of the Act refers).

Bailment is a common law concept where possession of personal property is transferred from one person (the bailor) to another person (the bailee) for purposes other than the transfer of ownership.  The example often given is where a restaurant or theatre (the bailee) provides an attended cloakroom free of charge to its customer (the bailor) for the safekeeping of their hats and coats.

While there are similarities with Leasing, leasing typically involves the lessee not merely taking possession of the lessor’s property but also making use of it and putting it to the lessee’s own purpose.  The concept behind bailments is more geared to safekeeping.

If we take the example of a business looking to locate their computer servers off-site at a third party’s premises, they are the bailor, placing their intellectual (and physical) property in the possession of another party, the bailee, for their safekeeping.  The arrangement is, presumably intended to be comparatively long term and thus there is, prima facie, a good case for it being treated as a PPS Lease.

However, at s13(2)(b) of the Act we are advised that a PPS Lease does not include a bailment by a bailor who is not regularly engaged in the business of bailing goods.

Our example business is a company engaged in the business of selling widgets thus ‘bailing’ its intellectual property would probably not be an activity associated with its main business.  I’d like to think that such an interpretation would stand up in court but, in the absence of legal precedent in Australia, we have to resort to querying NZ legal cases.  The closest we get in NZ seems to be the case of Rabobank New Zealand v McAnulty in 2011 where it was determined that the owners of a racehorse put out to stud with the bailee were regularly engaged in the business of profiting from their horse rather than engaged in bailments.

The final criteria for a bailment being a PPS Lease occurs at s13(3) wherein it is stated that a bailment will only be a PPS Lease where “the bailee provides value”.

While the computer storage facility will certainly be providing a valued service (that of hosting our business’s servers) I suspect that the Act is intending a much more narrow definition of ‘value’, specifically monetary payment or similar.

So, to summarise:

Our business is likely to be engaged in what might be considered, under common law, as a bailment of their intellectual property to the third party’s off-site computer facility.

This bailment would be deemed under the PPSA as a PPS Lease and thus be registrable on the PPSR provided:

1.            It is for a year or more, or for an indefinite period; and

2.            Our business is regularly engaged in bailing their property; and

3.            The off-site hosting company is providing ‘value’ (possibly payment) in their role as bailee.

While (1) above is probably satisfied, (2) and (3) are probably not, therefore, such an arrangement is unlikely to be registrable under the PPSA.  

It then follows that, if the bailment arrangement does not meet the full criteria for being a PPS Lease, a liquidator attached to the bailee would not be able to vest the bailor’s property as part of the bailee’s assets.

UPDATE: Since May 2017 the eligibility period for a lease or bailment being considered a PPS Lease has increased from 1 to 2 years.  For an indefinite lease or bailment, the PPSA will only apply once the 2 year period has elapsed.