Owen, in the matter of RiverCity Motorway Pty Limited (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)

The case involves an application by the former administrators of companies in the RiverCity Motorway Group, who were later appointed as joint and several liquidators of those companies, for a range of orders concerning various topics. The respondents include the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the creditors of the RCM Group, AECOM Australia Pty Ltd, and the receivers and managers of eight companies in the RCM Group. The applicants sought orders concerning the conduct of court proceedings, approval of certain remuneration, the liquidators' status as officers of RC Management, the validity of the appointment of Committees of Inspection, and ancillary procedural orders. The applicants were supported by the affidavit of Mr Michael Owen, a Registered and Official Liquidator and Partner in the firm PPB Advisory.

The legal issues before the court included whether the applicants were entitled to certain orders, including remuneration for their role as administrators and liquidators, whether the liquidators were officers of RC Management, and whether the liquidators were entitled to a right of indemnity out of the trust assets. The court also had to consider whether the liquidators' duties to the general body of creditors were subordinated by s 601FD(1)(c) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to the interests of the members of the managed investment schemes. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the time for compliance by the Responsible Entity with reporting obligations under the Act should be extended.

The court found that the applicants were entitled to certain orders, including confirmation of their remuneration for administering RC Management and the trusts under s 449E(2) of the Act, and fixing their remuneration in relation to RC Holdings under s 449E(1)(c). The court also found that the liquidators of RC Management were not officers of that company for the purposes of Ch 5C of the Act, and their duties to the general body of creditors were not subordinated by s 601FD(1)(c) to the interests of the members of the managed investment schemes. The court held that the liquidators were not entitled to a right of indemnity out of the trust assets, but they were entitled to exercise a right of indemnity out of the trust assets they were administering. The court also found that the appointment of the Committees of Inspection was valid, and orders should be made in their favour.

The court made several orders, including deeming the applicants to have given adequate and proper notice of the interlocutory process, determining and fixing the applicants' remuneration for administering RC Management and the trusts, and determining and fixing the applicants' remuneration for their role as joint and several administrators of RC Holdings. The court also made a non-publication order restricting particular information that comprises evidence in the proceeding or information about that evidence. The applicants and any other person who can demonstrate a sufficient interest have liberty to apply on giving all other interested parties not less than three business days’ notice.