In the decision of Gadsden V MacKinnon (Liquidator), in the matter of Allibi Pty Ltd (in liq),1 the Federal Court of Australia considered an application to replace the liquidators of Allibi Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (Allibi) pursuant to sections 90-10, 90-15 and 90-20 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (IPS).
Allibi entered into a sale transaction to sell its primary business and undertakings which completed in April 2018. It was subsequently wound up in June 2022 on the application of a creditor based on debts that had been raised before completion of the sale but which had been disputed by Allibi. Shortly after they were appointed, the liquidators of Allibi (Liquidators) issued a demand against the directors of Allibi for $69m, being the alleged personal benefit received by the directors from the sale transaction.
The directors then applied for orders to replace the Liquidators on the basis that (amongst other things) the Liquidators had maintained and published serious allegations against the directors without taking proper steps to satisfy themselves that there was a proper factual, legal or rational basis for those allegations.
The background to the matter is relatively complex, but the relevant facts can be summarised as follows.
Allibi was incorporated in 2007 and was appointed as the trustee of the Billi Unit Trust. Allibi (in its capacity as trustee) owned and operated a business that developed and marketed commercial “under the sink” water filtration and dispensing systems. The directors of Allibi were John Gadsen and Daniel Lindsay (the Directors).
In around 2016, Allibi entered into discussions with a UK company named Waterlogic Holdings Pty Ltd (Waterlogic) which was interested in purchasing Allibi’s business. Waterlogic did not want to acquire the business by purchasing the units in the Billi Unit Trust, so the following sale structure was negotiated and agreed:
Billi Australia was incorporated on 13 March 2018. On the same date, Waterlogic entered into a share sale agreement to purchase all of the shares in Billi Australia (Share Sale Agreement). On 12 April 2018, Allibi and Billi Australia entered into an asset sale agreement by which Allibi agreed to sell its business to Billi Australia (Asset Sale Agreement), and Billi Australia agreed to assume certain liabilities in connection with the business, with the consideration for the sale to be paid to the unitholders of the Billi Unit Trust.
The Share Sale Agreement and the Asset Sale Agreement completed on 27 April 2018.
Importantly, as at the date of completion:
After completion, the following events took place:
The Directors did not become aware of these matters until 2 June 2022.
Approximately two months after their appointment, the Liquidators became aware of the Asset Sale Agreement, and the potential argument that Billi Australia might have in fact assumed the liability to AEMS (although this might also have been impacted by a settlement of a separate dispute involving Waterlogic, Billi Australia and Allibi in February 2019). The Liquidators issued a letter to Billi Australia asking if Billi Australia accepted that it was liable for the AEMS debt, but Billi Australia denied this claim.
The Liquidators then issued a demand to the Directors on 30 August 2022 for $69m, alleging that the Directors had breached their duties in relation to the Asset Sale Agreement and expressly reserving their right to report the matter to ASIC. The Liquidators’ letter detailed allegations that the step in the sale process of the sale of the business from Allibi to Billi Australia had been an unreasonable director related transaction, and/or an uncommercial transaction, and/or had involved multiple breaches of duty by the Directors. The Liquidators issued their statutory report the next day to creditors and to ASIC which listed the $69m claim against the Directors as an asset of Allibi.
The Directors (via their solicitors) vigorously denied the claim including on the basis that:
The Directors (via a related entity that was a creditor in the liquidation (Aqueduct)) issued a request to the Liquidators pursuant to section 70-45 of the IPS seeking documents and information in relation to the $69m demand issued to the Directors. The Liquidators did not respond to the request from Aqueduct.
The Directors then applied to the Court under sections 90-10, 90-15 and 90-20 of the IPS for orders to replace the Liquidators on the grounds that the Liquidators had (amongst other things):
The Liquidators opposed the application.
The Directors argued that:
For their part, the Liquidators:
Sections 90-15(1) and (3b) of the IPS provide that “[t]he Court may make such orders as it think fit in relation to the external administration of a company”, including “an order that a person cease to be the external administrator of the company”.
Under section 90-15(4) of the IPS, the matters the Court may take into account include:
An order for removal of a liquidator may appropriately be made where it is demonstrated that it would be for the better conduct of the liquidation to the general advantage of persons interested in the winding up or in the best interests of the liquidation. An applicant (for removal of a director) may rely on any conduct or inactivity by a liquidator – the overall considerations are the interests of the liquidation and the purpose for which the liquidator was appointed.2
It has also been held that external administrators have “a duty to carry out reasonable investigations into potential claims so as to form an opinion as what future course of action is in the creditors’ interests”. In doing so, they are “required to take into account time, cost and uncertainty associated with litigating actions”, but a decision to litigate or not “should only be reached after careful consideration of the claims which can only be brought following a liquidation”.3
The Court ultimately found that the circumstances as to the Liquidators’ demand were so unsatisfactory as to justify the Liquidators’ removal and considered it unnecessary to deal with any other arguments for removal of the Liquidators.
In particular, the Court found that:
The Court held that proper cause for removal had been shown, and the orders sought should be made to maintain confidence in the integrity of the administration.
The Court also held that the order was also appropriate because a reasonable bystander would, on reasonable grounds, have lost confidence in the Liquidators, in circumstances where their actions had revealed that they lacked a sufficient understanding about a matter fundamental to their role.
This case serves as an important reminder that demands should not be issued and litigation should not be threatened unless there is an appropriate basis for the asserted claim. It also provides a useful red flag as to the dangers of pursuing an ambit claim.
The case also makes clear that the obligation of the liquidators to identify “possible recovery actions” for the purposes of their reports to creditors pursuant to section 40-40(3) of the IPS has clear limits, and does not permit or allow the pursuit of highly speculative allegations.
If you have any questions about this decision, or about the tests to be applied when considering or making a demand against another party in the context of potential litigation, the experienced Lavan team is here to help.
[1] [2023] FCA 647.
[2] Australia Securities and Investments Commission v Franklin (2014) 223 FCR 204 at 217 [55].
[3] Independent Cement and Lime Pty Ltd v Brick and Block Co Ltd (in liq) (rec and mgs apptd) (2010) 267 ALR 613.