Keith, in the matter of Aequitas Limited (in liq) [2019] FCA 1314

Judgment (6 paragraphs)

[1]

Direct the plaintiffs to file electronically the affidavit of Stuart William McKenzie sworn 30 July 2019 by 5.00 pm today.
Pursuant to s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (IPS), being Schedule 2 to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act), the first plaintiff cease forthwith to be the liquidator of the following companies: (a) Aequitas Limited (in liquidation); (b) Group Corporate Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation); (c) InvestmentSource Corporation Pty Ltd (in liquidation); (d) Property Corporate Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation); and (e) Vilacon Corporation Pty Ltd (in liquidation).
Pursuant to s 473A of the Act and s 90-15 of the IPS, the fourth plaintiff be appointed as liquidator of the following companies: (a) Aequitas Limited (in liquidation); (b) Group Corporate Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation); (c) InvestmentSource Corporation Pty Ltd (in liquidation); (d) Property Corporate Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation); and (e) Vilacon Corporation Pty Ltd (in liquidation).
Pursuant to s 90-15 of the IPS, the second plaintiff cease forthwith to be the liquidator of the following companies: (a) Rubicon Asset Management Limited (in liquidation); (b) Galestar Pty Ltd (in liquidation); (c) Zambito Pty Ltd (in liquidation);
Pursuant to s 90-15 of the IPS, the fifth plaintiff be appointed as liquidator of Rubicon Asset Management Limited (in liquidation).
Pursuant to s 473A of the Act and s 90-15 of the IPS, the fifth plaintiff be appointed as liquidator of the following companies: (a) Galestar Pty Ltd (in liquidation); and (b) Zambito Pty Ltd (in liquidation).

Background to application 4 Mr Keith was the liquidator of each of the following five companies: (1) Aequitas Limited (in liquidation) from April 2007; (2) Group Corporate Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation) from March 2004; (3) InvestmentSource Corporation Pty Ltd (in liquidation) from March 2004; (4) Property Corporate Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation) from March 2004; and (5) Vilacon Corporation Pty Ltd (in liquidation) from September 2004. 5 In July 2015, Mr Keith was appointed as Chief Executive Officer of Grant Thornton. He has not accepted any external administration appointments since that appointment and does not intended to do so in the future. In his affidavit, Mr Keith addressed the work that he has done to date and the work he considers still remains to be completed in each of the five liquidations. 6 Given his responsibilities as CEO and his intention to cease to maintain his registration as a liquidator with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), Mr Keith decided that it was prudent and in the best interests of the creditors of the five companies for him to cease to be liquidator and to be replaced by one of his partners, Mr Hewitt. 7 Mr Hewitt, a registered liquidator, consented to his appointment as liquidator of the five companies. 8 Mr Billingham was the liquidator of each of the following three companies: (1) Rubicon Asset Management Limited (in liquidation) (Rubicon) from October 2009; (2) Galestar Pty Ltd (in liquidation) from March 2012 (Galestar); and (3) Zambito Pty Ltd (in liquidation) from March 2012 (Zambito). 9 On 1 January 2019, Mr Billingham was appointed as the Office Chair of Grant Thornton in New South Wales. Like Mr Keith, he has not accepted any external administration appointments since his appointment as Office Chair and does not intended to do so in the future. In addition, Mr Billingham intends to work solely in Grant Thornton's consulting practice in the future and to cease to maintain his ASIC registration as a liquidator. 10 Mr Billingham's evidence was that, due to continuing complexities in the liquidation of Rubicon and entities for which it is responsible, it is not clear when the liquidation will be finalised. Mr Billingham also identified tasks to be completed in the liquidations of Galestar and Zambito. In the circumstances, Mr Billingham also considered that it was prudent and in the best interests of the creditors of the three companies for him to cease to be liquidator and to be replaced by one of his partners, Mr Jahani. 11 Mr Jahani, also a registered liquidator, consented to his appointment as liquidator of the five companies. 12 Mr McKinnon had given notice of his resignation from Grant Thornton and his employment with the firm ended on 31 July 2019. He proposed that Mr Crichton and Mr Killer be appointed as joint and several liquidators of the following two companies: (1) Multifix Constructions (QLD) Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (Multifix); and (2) Stone Benches Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (Stone Benches). 13 Mr McKinnon was appointed as liquidator of Multifix in February 2019. He was appointed with Stephen Dixon as joint and several liquidators of Stone Benches in February 2018. Mr Dixon retired from his position as liquidator in June 2018, when he resigned from Grant Thornton's partnership. 14 Investigations are continuing in the Multifix liquidation. In the Stone Benches liquidation, all of the assets have been realised and it is now necessary to review proofs of debt, calculate the dividend payable, pay that dividend to creditors, engage in statutory reporting, and finalise the liquidation. Mr McKinnon considered that it was in the best interests of the creditors of Multifix and Stone Benches that Mr Crichton and Mr Killer (both registered liquidators) be appointed for reasons set out in his affidavit, particularly that this would be the most cost effective course in the light of his intended resignation as liquidator. 15 Mr Crichton and Mr Killer consented to the proposed appointments. 16 ASIC was advised of the substance of the orders sought on 16 June 2019. Its officer, Ms Hu, stated AISC's view that creditors should be notified of the appointment of the replacement liquidators (including that the costs of the application were borne by Grant Thornton and not the creditors of the relevant companies) and should also be provided with an update on the status of the relevant external administration.

Relevant legal framework 17 The plaintiffs sought relief under s 473A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) and s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (IPS), being Sch 2 to the Act. The plaintiffs did not press for relief sought in the originating process pursuant to s 1322(4) of the Act dispensing with the requirements to comply with ss 70-30, 70-35 and 70-40 of the IPS. 18 Section 90-15(1) of the IPS provides that the Court may make such orders as it thinks fit in relation to the external administration of a company. Sub-sections 90-15(3)(b) and (c) identify orders that may be made pursuant to s 90-15(1), namely, an order that a person cease to be the external administrator of the company and an order that another registered liquidator be appointed as the external administrator of the company. 19 Section 473A(1)(a) provides that a vacancy in the office of a liquidator appointed by the Court may be filled by the Court. 20 In In the matter of Equiticorp Australia Limited (in liquidation) and other companies [2017] NSWSC 1456 at [2], Black J noted that the orders permitting the appointment of another liquidator under s 90-15 of the IPS correspond to a longstanding power of the Court to make orders for the appointment of a new liquidator, on the resignation of an existing liquidator. 21 In In the matter of Columbia Private Holdings Pty Ltd and other companies [2017] NSWSC 1859, Brereton J explained how s 90-15 permits the Court to do things that were previously done under ss 473, 499 and 503 of the Act. Relevantly, the following principles were established under the former provisions: (1) where an appointment of liquidators was made by a court other than this Court, this Court has power to make orders under s 473 and s 503: Naudi, in the matter of ACN 156 335 787 Pty Ltd (in liq) [2017] FCA 815 (Naudi) at [18]; In the matter of Ambridge Investments Pty Limited & Ors [2015] NSWSC 1671 at [13]; (2) a sufficient ground for removal includes a case where a liquidator wishes to resign: Naudi at [16]; (3) where a removal order is to be made because of retirement, there is a clear benefit in making orders which ensure continuity of the administration, in the case of joint and several liquidators, by having another member of the firm joint with the co-appointee whose appointment will continue: Free & Ors [2010] NSWSC 1079 at [6]; Naudi at [17]; In the matter of Richard James Porter and David Ian Mansfield [2012] NSWSC 220 at [5]; and In the matter of Kukulovski, Arnautovic & Crisp [2015] NSWSC 2040 at [7]; and (4) where a removal order is made in respect of one of two or more liquidators, there are practical advantages in making orders which ensure that the liquidation proceeds with jointly appointed liquidators: Naudi at [17].

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (6 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (7)