Search
Matthew Rollason
Industry Group Leader
“DibbsBarker continues to guide clients through both the highs and lows of the industry cycle”

Recent Publications

Everything you wanted to know about PPSA but were too afraid to ask

Focus: A weekly Q&A Alert on the impending PPSA
Services: Financial Services, Intellectual Property & Technology, Commercial, Property & Projects, Insurance
Industry Focus: Energy, Resources & Infrastructure, Financial Services, Medical & Pharmaceutical, Property, Insurance
Date: 14 November 2011
Author: Scott Guthrie, Partner

Willy Wonky

 

Last week we considered the impact of the PPSA on certain leases which do not secure the payment or performance of an obligation. This week we consider some of the issues that might arise where numerous PMSI interests have competing claims to a fund created by the sale of co-mingled goods.

 

Question

 

Willy Wonka Pty Ltd is a vendor of premium sugary treats including the world famous “Marshmallow and Nuts Super Crazy Combo” ice-cream. Whilst the recipe for this summery treat is closely guarded, it is known to contain only milk, cream, nuts and marshmallow.

 

Each ingredient is supplied by a different supplier under retention of title arrangements. Each of these suppliers perfect their interest by registering it on the PPS Register as a PMSI.

 

With summer just around the corner, things are looking up for Willy Wonka. The ice-cream has been manufactured (with each of the ingredients becoming co-mingled), but due to mismanagement, the directors appoint an administrator to the company a few hours after the electricity supplier turns off supply. The administrator hastily arranges the reconnection of power, and agrees to become personally liable for electricity charges so that she can preserve the ice-cream for sale.

 

The ice-cream is sold over a number of months and a sale fund of $200,000 is created. The administrator proposes to pay the various suppliers on a proportional basis (they are owed $50k, $60k, $75k and $100k respectively), but disputes between the suppliers become intractable. Moreover, they each contend that the administrator should not be able to deduct the cost of electricity and other reasonable costs associated with the sale of the ice-cream from the available fund.

 

What should the administrator do and what is she entitled to deduct from the fund?

 

Answer

 

There is no obligation upon the administrator to adjudicate the dispute between the suppliers. She should apply to pay the moneys into court, notify the suppliers of such a payment in, and leave them to “battle it out” before a judge. Furthermore, the administrator is entitled to deduct the costs of the electricity and associated expenses with selling the ice-cream, corresponding with the suppliers and paying money into court. Reading the Corporations Act and PPSA together, it is clear that the administrator’s lien has priority over any claims of the suppliers (or any other unsecured creditors). The administrator is therefore entitled to pay that amount as a priority from the fund.

 

The Lesson: The PPSA makes it explicit that security interests can be traced to a fund created following the sale of the relevant property. Where there are numerous claimants with registered PMSI’s, each is entitled to share in the fund according to the ratio that the amount secured bears to the total obligations secured by the various perfected security interests. For example, in this case, the marshmallow supplier would be entitled to 35% of the net proceeds. However, where an administrator (or, indeed, any external administrator) is required to preserve assets or a fund for the benefit of others, they will be entitled to deduct their reasonable expenses referable to the fund prior to payment out.

 
For more information on the PPSA, please contact a member of the DibbsBarker PPSA Team.
The information in this document is provided for general guidance only. It is not legal advice, and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional legal or other advisors. No warranty is given to the correctness of the information contained in this document, or its suitability for use by you. To the fullest extent permitted by law, no liability is accepted by DibbsBarker for any statement or opinion, or for an error or omission or for any loss or damage suffered as a result of reliance on or use by any person of any material in the document.
 
This publication is copyright. Apart from  any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, it may only be reproduced for internal business purposes, and may not otherwise be copied, adapted, amended, published, communicated or otherwise made available to third parties, in whole or in part, in any form  or by any means, without the prior written consent of DibbsBarker.
Legal 500 Asia Pacific
"DibbsBarker's level of engagement is comparable to that of a first-tier law firm." For more information on how the DibbsBarker Property Group can help your busines, please contact Matthew Rollason.
Privacy Disclaimer Contact Us Site Map CLIENT & STAFF LogIN © 2010 DIBBSBARKER