[edit on 10 April 2025  to note that this decision was overturned on appeal, a blog on the appeal decision is now on the to-do list!]

Background

A company (the Guarantor) had provided a mortgage to secure the borrowings of two associated companies, which were guaranteed by its directors.

Almost four years later the Guarantor was placed into liquidation, and the liquidator attacked the mortgage as an unreasonable director-related transaction, asking the lender to disgorge $12.15m in net proceeds, received after the land was sold and the first mortgagee repaid.

The Expert Evidence

The Lender arranged expert evidence to the effect that:

(1) It was common for lenders to take cross-securities from related entities when the security on offer from a borrower was inadequate.

(2) It was reasonable for the Guarantor to provide a mortgage in the circumstances; and

(3) The Lender acted in accordance with reasonably accepted lending practices in the circumstances.

That opinion was provided by an insolvency practitioner, rather than a banking expert, but it appears that there was no challenge to her expertise.

Conclusion

In Cooper as Liquidator of Runtong Investment and Development Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v CEG Direct Securities Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 6, the Federal Court held that:

• The evidence was “incomplete and lacking a number of important respects.” None of the directors of the three companies gave evidence, and the purpose of at least some of the funding was never explained.
• The Expert’s conclusion that the three companies were a part of a group was “no more than speculation on her part” given the “paucity of the evidence,” and so her conclusions based on that assumption could not be accepted.
• It was true that some part of the advances were later used to develop the mortgaged land but that did not demonstrate any benefit to the Guarantor at the time the mortgage was entered into. Once that was recognised, there was no benefit to the Guarantor in providing the mortgage whereas the detriment to the Guarantor was “obvious and substantial.”
• The liquidator was successful in having the mortgage declared an unreasonable director-related transaction – but was not entitled to the whole of the proceeds, because the Lender was entitled to credit for the circa $10m used to develop the mortgaged land, and which increased its value.

Comment

If the circumstances of the transaction had been properly understood and documented by the Lender it may well have been able to show that there was a genuine corporate benefit to the Guarantor in entering into the mortgage – but that opportunity being missed it was not something that could be later remedied in the absence of directors who had no reason to return to Australia.