Australian Securities and Investments Commission v CME Capital Australia Pty Ltd (No 2)

In the case of Australian Securities and Investments Commission v CME Capital Australia Pty Ltd (No 2), the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) applied to the Court for an order to wind up certain companies on the grounds that it was just and equitable to do so. The companies in question, along with their associated entities and directors, were involved in a complex financial arrangement where funds raised from investors were allegedly lent to other entities under unreasonable and uncommercial terms, with little to no repayment made. The dispute involved multiple defendants, including several companies and individuals connected to the financial dealings, with some defendants not opposing the winding up but objecting to the appointment of specific liquidators.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether ASIC's application to wind up the companies on just and equitable grounds was justified. The Court had to consider whether there was a justified lack of confidence in the conduct and management of the companies' affairs, whether there was a risk to the public interest warranting protection, and whether the companies were solvent. The Court also needed to address the objection to the proposed liquidators.

The Court found that the circumstances justified the winding up of the companies. The provisional liquidators' report confirmed that the companies were insolvent and that there was a justified lack of confidence in the management and conduct of the companies' affairs. The Court was also satisfied that there was a risk to the public interest due to the potential for significant loss to investors. Despite the reluctance to wind up solvent companies, the Court determined that the companies were indeed insolvent. Accordingly, the Court made orders winding up the companies and appointing the proposed liquidators.

The Court's final orders included the winding up of the first, second, third, fourth and fifth defendants and the appointment of Ross Andrew Blakeley and Quentin James Olde of FTI Consulting as joint and several liquidators of these defendants. The Court's decision was based on the findings that the companies were insolvent and that it was just and equitable to wind them up.