Rupert Co v Chameleon Mining
[2008] FCA 582
At a glance
Source factsCourt
Federal Court of Australia
Decision date
2008-04-18
Before
Lindgren J
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Judgment (7 paragraphs)
Introduction 1 On 18 April 2008 I ordered that the winding up of the second plaintiff, Terraplanet Limited (in liquidation) (Terraplanet), be terminated on that date. These are my reasons for the making of that order. 2 Previously on 21 December 2007, pursuant to s 436B(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act), I granted the first plaintiffs, Christopher John Palmer and Bryan Patrick Collis (the Liquidators), the liquidators of Terraplanet, leave to appoint themselves as its administrators. Pursuant to s 447A of the Act, I dispensed with the holding of the first meeting of creditors required to be held pursuant to s 436E of the Act. On 28 December 2007, I published reasons for the making of those orders: see Palmer and Collis and Terraplanet Limited (in liquidation), in the matter of Terraplanet Limited (in liquidation) [2007] FCA 2092. Those reasons form part of my reasons for the making of the order terminating the winding up, and I will take those earlier reasons as read. 3 As appears from the earlier reasons, Terraplanet carried on business as a publisher of magazines, graphic design and pre-press service provider, internet web site designer and developer and related businesses. It was formerly admitted to the Official List of the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) but its securities were suspended from trading on the ASX in November 2002. Also, as appears from the earlier reasons, for a time the Liquidators were voluntary administrators of Terraplanet. On 7 January 2003, at a meeting of creditors held under s 439A of the Act, the creditors resolved under s 439C(c) of the Act that Terraplanet be wound up. The voluntary administration then came to an end and the Liquidators (in their then capacity as administrators) became the liquidators of Terraplanet. 4 After events recounted in the earlier reasons, the position was reached that if the winding up were to be finalised, there would be no distribution to ordinary unsecured creditors, whose claims totalled approximately $1,533,000. 5 Terraplanet received a recapitalisation proposal from Dalgety Capital Pty Ltd (Dalgety), under which Dalgety would inject $1,800,000 cash into Terraplanet in return for shares representing approximately 92.17% of Terraplanet's issued share capital. The proposal was conditional on the Liquidators again being appointed as administrators of Terraplanet, and the creditors of Terraplanet resolving under s 439C(a) of the Act that Terraplanet execute a deed of company arrangement (DOCA) proposed by Dalgety. 6 It was predicted that, if the proposal was approved and the DOCA was executed: · there would be sufficient funds to pay a preferential claim of the Department of Workplace Relations (DEWR) in respect of a GEERS payout to employees totalling $337,837; · the ordinary unsecured creditors of Terraplanet would receive a distribution of approximately 15 cents in the dollar; and · the approximately 2,500 shareholders of Terraplanet would retain one share for every eight shares currently held by them in Terraplanet, whose shares would again be traded on the ASX. (It is noted that in the earlier reasons I referred (at [20]) to the affidavit evidence of Bryan Patrick Collis as establishing that, if the proposal was approved and the DOCA was executed, it was predicted that the ordinary unsecured creditors would receive a distribution of approximately 1.5 cents in the dollar. While that statement was a correct reflection of the affidavit evidence before the Court, it has now come to light that there was an error in the affidavit of Bryan Patrick Collis, and that it was in fact predicted that the ordinary unsecured creditors would receive a distribution of approximately 15 cents in the dollar.)