Credit Insights

You can be too smart for your own good

The preferential payment provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 are one of the most powerful weapons in a liquidator’s armory. As many would be aware, creditors have many defences available but the most often successfully employed is the continuing business relationship or running account defence contained in Section 588FA(3) of the Corporations Act.

Recently, we had a situation where a creditor appears to inadvertently forfeited their ability to maximise the application of this defence!

The most often successfully employed defence to a preference claim is the continuing business relationship or running account defence.

The appointment
We were appointed liquidator to a manufacturing business. The trade creditor above supplied stock to the company. After the business defaulted on paying for the stock and accrued a large debt, the trade creditor took various actions against the company including the following:

  • Setting up a fence around the large quantity of its stock held at the company’s premises and implemented controls for how the stock was released to the company.
  • Converting the “trade debt” to a “loan debt” via a loan agreement.
  • It formally terminated the previous trade credit agreement and executed with the company new terms of trade for future purchases. Its new terms were substantially more restrictive, including reducing payment terms to essentially almost COD terms.
  • In its own management systems, a separate account recorded the new loan balance distinctly from the new trade account balance. This drew a clear distinction between the loan debt and the new trade account balance. For all intents and purposes, it appeared to treat them as two completely separate debts.

It was apparent from the new loan agreement terms that the trade creditor was seriously concerned with the company’s financial position as the agreement provided that:

  • The company must provide monthly sales and financial reports to the trade creditor to keep them updated with the company’s financial performance (and critically, it allowed the trade creditor to maintain an intimate level of knowledge of the company’s solvency position).
  • Payments must be paid by 4PM of the due dates.
  • There were strict default provisions that made the loan’s full balance automatically due, and penalties and interest were triggered automatically.

Pretty savvy trade creditor, right?

The claim
I would first like to point out that proving insolvency and knowledge of insolvency are two of the most difficult and subjective elements of a preference claim. But in this case, we couldn’t have asked for a more ideal set of indicators to support our claim that this creditor “knew or had reason to suspect insolvency”. These indicators also assisted greatly in the other insolvent transaction claims we pursued in the liquidation.

We pursued the preference claim against the trade creditor. They disputed our claim arguing the running account defence by combining all of the loan’s transactions and payments together with the trade credit balance.

We counterargued that if the running account defence was indeed available, it was not available in respect to the loan payments. This is because it was clear that they had a business relationship, but it was clearly ended by the termination of the previous terms of trade, by converting the trade debt to a loan, and by establishing new terms of trade. Therefore, those payments could not form part of a continuing business relationship under Section 588FA(3) of the Corporations Act, as, among other things, the payments related to a former business relationship, those payments did not involve the supply of goods and services, and the payments were not connected to subsequent supply.

The outcome
The claim was settled before it went before the court. However, it certainly raised sufficient concerns to be a critical element in support of our position. Although the credit department’s primary goal is to recover as much money as possible, it is wise to consider the potential scenarios where the debtor is placed into liquidation and how those recovery actions may come back to haunt you. This example is proof that you can be too smart for your own good!

Unfair preferences – creditor’s defence of not suspecting insolvency

Just because a liquidator asserts you have received an unfair preference, does not necessarily mean you have or that there are no potential defences available to you. The Corporations Act 2001(Cth), enables liquidators in certain circumstances to claw back payments made by a debtor company to an unsecured creditor where the payment was made to …

Unfair preferences – creditor’s defence of not suspecting insolvency Read More…

The HIA warns Australia’s housing construction downturn could get nasty unless credit continues to flow

Australia’s Housing Industry Association (HIA) has warned that tighter lending standards risks exacerbating the downturn in residential construction activity already under way. The HIA is forecasting that housing starts will slow to 183,230 by the 2020/21 financial year, more than 50,000 less than the peak of 233,970 homes that began construction in the 2015/16 financial …

The HIA warns Australia’s housing construction downturn could get nasty unless credit continues to flow Read More…

Are unresolved A/R disputes taking a toll on your company’s bottom line?

Have you ever calculated your costs for resolving receivable disputes? If you have, you’ve probably discovered that the process is quite expensive. Here’s why. A misstep in any department involved in a sale can result in a discrepancy that delays payment and drives up costs. Disputes, discrepancies and exceptions are “nonstandard” transactions that require additional …

Are unresolved A/R disputes taking a toll on your company’s bottom line? Read More…

The right to be wrong – the ability to review Adjudicators’ determinations

Under tight time pressures to decide often complex matters, Adjudicators appointed to determine an adjudication application under Security of Payment legislation may make mistakes.  When the Adjudicator makes an error of law, are the parties to the determination able to have it set aside? This was the question confronted by the High Court in two …

The right to be wrong – the ability to review Adjudicators’ determinations Read More…

Minority creditor terminates director friendly voluntary administration

After pursuing a long and hard fought Supreme Court claim, our client obtained judgment for an amount of $1.64 million.  Shortly thereafter, the defendant company was placed into voluntary administration by its director. The judgement itself is a landmark decision in Australia for the general proposition that the views of unrelated creditors, in these circumstances, …

Minority creditor terminates director friendly voluntary administration Read More…

Ipso facto Insolvency Reforms

The Drive to Promote More Innovation and Entrepreneurship It’s been well published in recent years that the Australian Government has considered various measures to promote and support the success of business start-ups in Australia. A large percentage of small to medium sized enterprises collapse within the first three years of commencement for various reasons, ranging …

Ipso facto Insolvency Reforms Read More…

A New “Fairer” Way In Queensland – Building Industry Fairness (Security Of Payment) Act – Nov 2017

On 10 November 2017, the new Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Bill 2017 (Qld) was assented to by the Parliament.  This will see the introduction of Project Bank Accounts, and the repealing and replacement of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) (‘BCIP Act’) and Subcontractors’ Charges Act 1974 (Qld). Although payment …

A New “Fairer” Way In Queensland – Building Industry Fairness (Security Of Payment) Act – Nov 2017 Read More…

QLD – The Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Bill 2017 was introduced to Parliament on Tuesday 22 August

On 22 August 2017, the Queensland government introduced the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Bill2017 (the Bill). The Bill contains the most controversial, radical and wide-reaching amendments to legislation governing the building and construction industry since the initial introduction of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (BCIPA) in 2004. The maximum penalties …

QLD – The Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Bill 2017 was introduced to Parliament on Tuesday 22 August Read More…

Scroll to Top