Dickerson, in the matter of McWilliam’s Wines Group Ltd (subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) (No 5)

In the matter of McWilliam's Wines Group Ltd, subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement (No 5), the court was tasked with granting an application for orders under section 447A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and section 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations). This application sought permission for the company, which was under a deed of company arrangement, to enter into an alternative deed of company arrangement without triggering a deemed creditors' voluntary winding up. Additionally, the court was asked to provide directions as to whether the administrators were justified in proposing an alternative deed of company arrangement to the creditors, in accordance with the framework proposed by the applicants. The primary legal issues revolved around the court's authority to make such orders and whether the proposed alternative deed of company arrangement was justified and beneficial to the creditors.

The court carefully considered the principles and statutory provisions applicable to the case, concluding that it had the power to make the orders sought by the applicants. The court was satisfied that the orders should be made to allow for the alternative deed of company arrangement, providing creditors with a choice between the proposed DOCAs, as well as the choices contemplated by section 439C of the Corporations Act. The court emphasized the importance of providing creditors with adequate notice and opportunity to participate in the hearing, and found that the short notice given in this case was insufficient. Furthermore, the court highlighted the need for sufficient evidence regarding the proposed sale arrangements and the potential impact on creditors.

The court granted the application for orders, allowing the company to enter into the alternative deed of company arrangement without triggering a deemed creditors' voluntary winding up. Additionally, the court granted the application for directions, finding that the administrators were justified in proposing the alternative deed of company arrangement. The court's decision was based on the broad powers conferred by section 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule and the need to consider whether the provision of judicial advice advanced the objects of Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act and was not inconsistent with the objects of the Insolvency Practice Schedule. The court concluded that the orders and directions were just and would be of utility to the external administration.