Background
3 HDL is a public company, incorporated and operating in Australia. It was previously listed on the Australian Securities Exchange. Since 27 June 2016, it has been voluntarily suspended from official quotation.
4 HDL is the ultimate holding company of the thirteen Australian-based subsidiary companies and another company which was incorporated in the United States of America. It is convenient to refer to HDL and its subsidiary companies as, simply, the Group.
5 The Group's principal activities consist of providing drilling services to the mining industry, with a focus on niche services for production, delineation and mining companies that do not have specialised equipment or qualified personnel to perform the necessary work themselves. The Group also supplies manufactured drill rigs and spare parts.
6 The Group's key assets comprise drilling rigs valued at approximately $67.7 million (as at 30 April 2016). Other assets include drill compressors, land and buildings, support vehicles, light vehicles, other plant and equipment and certain intangible assets (intellectual property) with a total value of approximately $18.5 million (as at 30 April 2016).
7 Companies in the Group are also party to approximately 20 service contracts with major mining companies such as BHP Billiton Ltd, Fortescue Metals Group Ltd, Downer EDI Ltd and Yancoal Australia Ltd, servicing mines across the east coast and west coast of Australia. These contracts (the service contracts) together generate approximately $6 million in monthly revenue for the Group.
8 As at 22 September 2016, HDL and the Australian-based subsidiary companies had a drawn overdraft balance of $11,601,145, but with only $49,398 in cash at bank. Westpac was the principal secured creditor. At that time it was owed approximately $47 million under existing debt facilities. Other secured creditors include suppliers with retention of title arrangements and lessors with registrations on the PPSR. The Group has a potential taxation debt of $19 million (including a superannuation guarantee charge of approximately $4.3 million). The Group has approximately 450 trade creditors (approximately $7 million) and accrued employee entitlements (approximately $4.6 million). In this latter connection, the Australian-based subsidiaries together employ over 300 employees, although most of these employees are employed by two companies in the Group which provide drilling and drilling-related services to customers under the service contracts. Some of these employees are paid weekly. Some are paid fortnightly. Others are paid monthly. The next tranche of wages ($715,094 inclusive of superannuation and tax) is due on 28 September 2016. The first plaintiffs' forecast that a total amount of $9.7 million will be payable to employees over the next 13 weeks.
9 Since their appointment, it has not been possible for the first plaintiffs, in the limited time available, to investigate comprehensively the affairs of the Group. They have, however, formed the view that there are advantages in the Group continuing to trade as a going concern so as to enable them to explore either a sale or rehabilitation of the Group's business. The first plaintiffs forecast that the following payments will need to be made:
approximately $3.3 million by 30 September 2016, of which $0.9 million represents wage payments;
approximately $5.8 million between 1 October and 28 October 2016, of which $3.7 million represents wage payments;
approximately $7 million between 29 October and 25 November 2016, of which $3 million represents wage payments; and
approximately $4.9 million between 26 November and 16 December 2016, of which $2.1 million represents wage payments.
10 It will also be necessary to value the Group's business and assets. The first plaintiffs estimate that this will cost between approximately $50,000 and $60,000.
11 The Group has insufficient liquidity to make the payments summarised above, as and when those payments will fall due. The first plaintiffs are concerned that if wages are not paid on time, it is very likely that the employees of the Australian-based subsidiaries will cease to perform the work required to complete or otherwise comply with the service contracts. The first plaintiffs are concerned that non-compliance with the service contracts will trigger events of default and the likely termination of those contracts by the relevant customers. This would, in turn, preclude or complicate recovery of existing debts coming out of the service contracts and could remove the key source of future income for the Group.
12 So as to avoid the risk of adverse consequences arising from the failure to make the relevant payments as and when they fall due, and to maintain the day-to-day trading of the Australian Group companies, the first plaintiffs have negotiated an interim funding arrangement with Westpac which involves borrowing approximately $4 million (the funding arrangement). It is envisaged that, on drawing down these funds, HDL will provide intercompany loans to each subsidiary to enable each subsidiary to meet its payments to employees and suppliers.
13 The funding arrangement provides that if the funds received by the first plaintiffs as administrators to which they have recourse pursuant to s 443F of the Act are not sufficient to repay the money borrowed under the funding arrangement, then Westpac agrees to release, and covenants not to sue, the first plaintiffs in respect of their personal liability to repay the borrowed money to the extent of that insufficiency. In short, Westpac is prepared to lend the $4 million on a limited recourse basis. The reason for the present application is that, despite the agreement between Westpac and the first plaintiffs, s 443A(1) of the Act will continue to subject the first plaintiffs to personal liability to repay the borrowed money and interest in respect thereof: s 443A(2) of the Act. Understandably, the first plaintiffs are unwilling to allow the funding arrangement to be entered into if there is a risk that they might be subject to substantial personal liabilities arising from their efforts to promote the interests of the Group companies and their creditors. There is, therefore, a need to modify the operation of s 443A pursuant to s 447A of the Act.
14 The first plaintiffs seek orders pursuant to s 447A of the Act to the effect that:
any moneys advanced by Westpac to HDL under the funding arrangement be treated as debts incurred by the first plaintiffs (in their capacity as administrators of HDL) in the performance and exercise of their functions and powers as administrators under s 443A(1) of the Act;
the operation of s 443A(1) of the Act be modified so that, if the property of HDL is insufficient to satisfy the debts incurred by the first plaintiffs under the funding arrangement for which the right of indemnity exists under s 443D of the Act, the first plaintiffs (in their capacity as administrators of HDL) will not be personally liable to repay such debts to the extent of that insufficiency; and
the operation of s 443A(1) of the Act be modified so that the personal liability of the first plaintiffs (in their capacity as administrators of HDL and each of the other corporate plaintiffs) under s 443A of the Act exclude any liability for any loans or advances from HDL to those corporate plaintiffs and for any loans, advances or other debts between two or more companies in the Group.
15 In an affidavit read in support of the present application, Mr Preston, one of the first plaintiffs, has deposed that it is the first plaintiffs' intention to continue to operate the Group's business in a way which, to the greatest extent possible, will preserve the value of the assets of the Group companies. He has deposed that the funding arrangement is the only viable and immediately available option to achieve this. He said that the funding will maximise the chances of the Group companies continuing to trade as a going concern, the effect of which would be to:
preserve the value of the Group companies' assets for the benefit of creditors;
maximise the potential proceeds of a sale process; and
conversely, avoid the potential discount to the amount that the Group companies might receive on a sale of the business or their assets in a liquidation.