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.

PPSR Statistics & the Rise of 'Other Goods'

The Australian Financial Security Authority (AFSA) – perhaps better known as the people that run the PPSR – released, earlier this month, PPSR related statistics for the July-September quarter.

I’ve included a link here.

As at the end of September, there had been a total of 19,265,693 registrations, of which marginally under half were still current.

The largest single collateral class overall was, unsurprisingly, Motor Vehicles, accounting for 49% of all current registrations (although if you take Consumer related transactions out of the picture this drops to 34%).

However, what caught my eye this time around was the extent to which Other Goods registrations have come to dominate over the last 5 years.

5 years ago, All Present & After-Acquired Property registrations (AllPAAPs) accounted for a little over 2 million registrations while Other Goods registrations made up less than a million (944k).

This shouldn’t be too much of a surprise; AllPAAPs are primarily the preserve of banks and financiers who would have been all over the PPSR upon its introduction, ensuring their security interests were properly protected from the outset.  Other Goods registrations, on the other hand, are very much the tool of the trade credit supplier with Retention of Title rights and, as we know, this disparate group is not always the most organised or receptive when it comes to ‘Government Red Tape’.

However, things have changed considerably over the last 5 years with AllPAAP registrations remaining pretty static (even declining slightly) and Other Goods registrations steaming ahead as trade credit suppliers get the message that PPSR registration represents one bit of Red Tape they need to adopt if they are to protect their rights over their unpaid goods and give themselves a better chance of fending off liquidators’ preference claim clawbacks.

With over 2.6 million current registrations, Other Goods now represents the largest collateral class for non-consumer registrations.

There is every indication that this trend will continue as trade credit suppliers come to terms with the fact that the PPSR isn’t going anywhere and failing to embrace it will only contribute to them suffering larger losses than they need to.

Progress of the PPSR Review Report - UPDATE

I wrote to the Attorney-General's Department (AGD) in September 2016 asking what progress had been made during the 18 months following the tabling in Parliament of Bruce Whittaker's final report of the Review of the Personal Property Securities Act.  

My request for information and the AGD's response were the subject of a post of mine at the time - see here.

A year later, with no action evident from the AGD, I thought I'd try again.  As before, I reproduce below my request and the AGD's subsequent response.

My request (27/09/2017):

It's been 30 mths since Bruce Whittaker's Report of the Review of the Personal Property Securities Act was tabled in Parliament.

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. 

I am sure that the Gov’t is keen to ensure that all parties are given due consideration and that reform must be executed with care and diligence. I also appreciate that the response to the review must be progressed as a comprehensive package rather than on an ad hoc basis in order to achieve its aims to reduce complexity and burden without prejudicing the interests of any party.

However, 30 mths have now passed with only one of the Review’s 394 recommendations having any reflection in subsequent legislation.  Surely, by now, an efficient Gov’t administration will be in a position to provide information on implementation timeframes and intentions.

The AGD's response (31/10/2017):

Thank you for your email of 27 September 2017 regarding implementation of the Review of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (the Review).

Since the Review was tabled in Parliament on 18 March 2015, the Government has prioritised development and passage of the Personal Property Securities (PPS Leases) Act 2017 (the PPS Leases Act). The PPS Leases Act has reduced the regulatory burden imposed by the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 Act (the Act) on the hire and rental industry by increasing the term of a PPS lease from at least one year to at least two years, providing that an indefinite lease is not a PPS lease unless and until it has been in force for two years, and making other amendments.

The Government has given close consideration to the 394 recommendations made by the Review and conducted targeted consultations with stakeholders. The Government intends to release an Exposure Draft of a Bill to amend the Act and a prototype PPS Register, for public consultation. Stakeholders will have an opportunity to provide comment on the Bill and the Register before the Government takes further action to implement the recommendations of the Review.

The Government will make further announcements about the timing of public consultation on the Bill and Register.

I hope this information is of assistance.

Taking the AGD's response at face value, a new PPSR seems to be on the cards rather than merely some tweaks to the existing register!

By way of recap, some of the changes recommended in the review included removing the need to designate security interests as PMSIs or as the supply of items for inventory, as well as taking away the requirement to identify grantors that are trustees of trusts by their trust's ABN.

I'll probably write again next year to the AGD with a follow-up enquiry regarding progress on this matter, but, in the meantime, I'd be grateful if any stakeholders that have been on the receiving end of 'targeted consultations' could get in touch with me and, perhaps, shed some light on the manner in which the AGD's thinking has been progressed.