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!

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!