Bechrose Pty Ltd v Jefferson (Trustee) [1999] FCA 1153

Bechrose Pty Ltd v Jefferson (Trustee) [1999] FCA 1153

Section 64ZB(8) requires that the value of an assigned debt for voting at a creditors' meeting be equal to the value of the consideration objectively given for its assignment. Here, applicant failed to specify or apportion any consideration for the guarantee and provided no written statement as required by s 64D(aa), thus trustees were justified in valuing the vote at $1 nominally, and strictly the applicant was not entitled to vote at all.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Review Under Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['assigned Debt Voting Value' 'trustee Determination Review' 'secured Creditor Voting' 'voidable Transactions' 'guarantee Valuation']
['bankruptcy'] ['assigned Debt Voting Value' 'trustee Determination Review' 'secured Creditor Voting' 'voidable Transactions' 'guarantee Valuation']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Review Under Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether trustee correctly assigned nominal value to applicant's vote in creditors' meeting" 'Application of s 64ZB(8) Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) to valuation of assigned debt' 'Effect of failure to apportion consideration for assignment of guarantee' 'Whether applicant entitled to vote for full value of guaranteed debt']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 64ZB(8) requires that the value of an assigned debt for voting at a creditors' meeting be equal to the value of the consideration objectively given for its assignment. Here, applicant failed to specify or apportion any consideration for the guarantee and provided no written statement as required by s 64D(aa), thus trustees were justified in valuing the vote at $1 nominally, and strictly the applicant was not entitled to vote at all.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' 'The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy be joined as second respondent as from 9 August 1999.' "The applicant pay the first respondents' costs up to and including 8 August 1999." "The applicant pay the second respondent's costs from and including 9 August 1999."]