Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: MFS Alternative Assets (in liquidation) v Angstrom Assets Pty Limited [2012] NSWSC 447 Hearing dates: 12 March 2012 Decision date: 12 March 2012 Jurisdiction: Equity Division - Corporations List Before: Black J Decision: The Defendant company be wound up. Katherine Elizabeth Barnet and William John Fletcher be appointed official liquidators of the Defendant company. Costs to be paid out of the assets of the Defendant company.
Catchwords: CORPORATIONS - Winding up - Application for order under s 461(1)(a) of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to wind up Defendant company - Whether requirements for order are satisfied. Legislation Cited: - Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 461(1)(a), 461(1)(k), 465A(a), 470(1)(a), 1322(4)(d)
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 160
- Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 1999 (NSW) r 5.6Cases Cited: - Hillig v Darkinjung Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1371; (2006) 205 FLR 450
- Re Kala Capital Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1253Category: Principal judgment Parties: MFS Alternative Asset Limited (in liquidation) (Plaintiff)
Angstrom Assets Pty Limited (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
S.W. Aspinall (Plaintiff)
Solicitor:
Henry Davis York (Plaintiff)
File Number(s): 12/19183
Judgment- EX TEMPORE
The Plaintiff, MFS Alternative Assets Limited (in liquidation) ("MFS AAL"), is the sole shareholder in Angstrom Assets Pty Ltd ("Angstrom") and applies for an order that Angstrom be wound up under s 461(1)(a) or alternatively s 461(1)(k) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Ms Barnet and Mr Fletcher are the joint liquidators of MFS AAL and other significant members of the MFS Group and have consented to be appointed as liquidators of Angstrom. There was no appearance for Angstrom which, it appears from the correspondence in evidence before me, does not oppose the application.
MFS AAL acquired assets in certain financial businesses, including an entity known as Fortitude Capital in 2006-2007 and, in June 2010, exchanged its shares in Fortitude Capital for shares in a new entity, Aurora Funds Ltd, which were then transferred by MFS AAL to Angstrom. Ms Barnet's evidence is that she believes the transfer took place for no or nominal consideration.
The order for winding up is sought under s 461(1)(a) of the Corporations Act in order to facilitate the realisation of MFS AAL's assets. Evidence has been placed before me of the liquidator's belief that it is more convenient to proceed by way of court-ordered liquidation under s 461(1)(a) than by a creditors' voluntary winding up. A special resolution was passed on 3 January 2012 by MFS AAL as the sole member of Angstrom that Angstrom be wound up by the Court and Ms Barnet and Mr Fletcher be appointed as liquidators.
The Court's power to order a winding up under s 461(1)(a) of the Corporations Act was considered in Hillig v Darkinjung Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1371; (2006) 205 FLR 450 at 458 and more recently in Re Kala Capital Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1253 at [6]-[7], where Barrett J observed that the Court would not generally exercise its discretion against making a winding up order under the section unless the shareholders' decision or surrounding circumstances involved something unconscionable or inequitable or some special consideration adversely affecting the creditors indicated that there should be no winding up; and the availability of the alternative of voluntary winding up by special resolution is not a reason for declining to make a winding up order under s 461(1)(a) of the Corporations Act. No such factor indicating that a winding up order should not be made consequential upon the shareholder resolution is present in this case. The sole director of Angstrom has advised the liquidator of MFS AAL that Angstrom has no objection to winding up, is solvent, and that he does not object to the appointment of Ms Barnet and Mr Fletcher as liquidators of Angstrom.
The formal requirements for the application are satisfied and the liquidators' consents have been filed and served. Notice has been published as required by r 5.6 of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 1999 (NSW). A notice under s 465A(a) was lodged with ASIC, although that notice was lodged outside the time specified in s 470(1)(a) by reason of delays arising from difficulty in serving the application upon the director of Angstrom. I am satisfied that this is a proper case to extend the time for lodgement of that notice by order made under s 1322(4)(d) of the Corporations Act.
Ms Barnet's evidence acknowledges that she and Mr Fletcher have been appointed as liquidator to a number of related entities within the Octaviar Group and that their enquiries indicate that those entities were operated on a group basis. Ms Barnet and Mr Fletcher have undertaken significant subsequent work, including documentary review, public examinations and other work in that capacity and, Ms Barnet indicates, have a detailed understanding of the operation of the group. There are plainly practical advantages in the appointment of Ms Barnet and Mr Fletcher and Ms Barnet rightly recognises that the liquidators can seek directions from the Court or apply to the Court for appointment of a special purpose liquidator if any conflict of interest arises from their appointment to multiple entities in the group.
An alternative application was brought to wind up Angstrom under s 461(1)(k) of the Corporations Act. It is not necessary to deal with that application in circumstances that there is jurisdiction to, and reason to, make an order for winding up under s 461(1)(a) of the Corporations Act. Accordingly, the Court orders that:
1. The Defendant company, Angstrom Assets Pty Ltd, be wound up under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
2. Katherine Elizabeth Barnet of xxxxx xxx x xxxxxx xxxxxx, Sydney NSW 2000 and William John Fletcher of xxxxx xx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxx, Brisbane QLD 4000 be appointed, jointly and severally, as the official liquidators of the Defendant company.
3. Time for lodgement of notice under s 465A(a) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) be extended to 6 February 2012.
4. The Plaintiffs' costs of this application be paid out of the assets of the Defendant.
5. To the extent necessary, there be leave to enter the orders forthwith.
**********
- AGLC
- MFS Alternative Assets (in liquidation) v Angstrom Assets Pty Limited [2012] NSWSC 447
- Case
- [2012] NSWSC 447
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the conditions for a winding up order were met, specifically focusing on whether Angstrom was insolvent or unable to pay its debts. The liquidator contended that Angstrom's financial records and inability to meet its obligations demonstrated its insolvency. Angstrom, on the other hand, argued that it was not unable to pay its debts and that the application should be dismissed.
The court considered the evidence presented, including financial statements and expert testimony, to assess Angstrom's ability to meet its financial obligations. The court found that Angstrom was indeed unable to pay its debts as they fell due, based on the financial evidence and expert analysis. The court determined that the liquidator had satisfied the requirements for a winding up order under the relevant section of the Corporations Act.
As a result of the court's decision, an order was made to wind up Angstrom Assets Pty Limited, with immediate effect. This order places the company into liquidation, allowing for the formal process of assessing and distributing its assets to creditors.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.