Re Alita Resources Ltd - [2020] WASC 430

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   RE ALITA RESOURCES LTD; EX PARTE RICHARD SCOTT TUCKER as joint and several administrator of ALITA RESOURCES LTD (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT) [2020] WASC 430
CORAM:   MASTER SANDERSON
HEARD:   24 NOVEMBER 2020
DELIVERED          :   27 NOVEMBER 2020
PUBLISHED           :   27 NOVEMBER 2020
FILE NO/S:   COR 251 of 2019
MATTER:   Alita Resources Ltd (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) (ACN 147 393 735) and the Other Companies listed in the Schedule

EX PARTE
RICHARD SCOTT TUCKER as joint and several administrator of ALITA RESOURCES LTD (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT)
JOHN ALLAN BUMBAK as joint and several administrator of ALITA RESOURCES LTD (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT)
First Plaintiffs
RICHARD SCOTT TUCKER as joint and several administrator of TAWANA RESOURCES PTY LTD (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT)
JOHN ALLAN BUMBAK as joint and several administrator of TAWANA RESOURCES PTY LTD (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT)
Second Plaintiffs
RICHARD SCOTT TUCKER as joint and several administrator of LITHCO NO 2 PTY LTD (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT)
JOHN ALLAN BUMBAK as joint and several administrator of LITHCO NO 2 PTY LTD (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT)
Third Plaintiffs

Catchwords:

Corporations law - Application to vary terms of Deed of Company Arrangement - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Result:

Deed varied

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiffs	:	P Edgar
Second Plaintiffs	:	P Edgar
Third Plaintiffs	:	P Edgar
Non-party	:	K de Kerloy
Interested Party	:	J Abberton

Solicitors:

First Plaintiffs	:	King & Wood Mallesons
Second Plaintiffs	:	King & Wood Mallesons
Third Plaintiffs	:	King & Wood Mallesons
Non-party	:	Herbert Smith Freehills
Interested Party	:	Lavan

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Re Derwent Howard Media Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1164
Re Paradox Digital Pty Ltd; Ex Parte Smith [2001] WASC 182

MASTER SANDERSON:

This matter was commenced by originating process filed 18 December 2019. On 6 March 2020, I made the following orders:
1.Pursuant to section 444GA(1)(b) of the Corporations Act the Plaintiffs jointly and severally have leave to transfer 100% of the fully paid ordinary shares in the capital of Alita (Shares) from the 'members' (as defined by the Corporations Act) of Alita (Members), to the Proponent and/or its nominee(s) on the Completion Date as defined in the deed of company arrangement (DOCA) and in accordance with its terms.
2.Pursuant to section 447A(1) of the Corporations Act and clause 90-15(1) of the Insolvency Practice Schedule, any of the Plaintiffs may jointly or severally:
(a)execute on behalf of the Members share transfer forms and any other documents ancillary or incidental to effecting the transfer referred to in Order 1; and
(b)enter or procure the entry of the name of the Proponent and/or its nominee(s) in the Share register for Alita in respect of all Shares transferred to the Proponent and/or its nominee(s) in accordance with Order 1.
3.Any persons who are entitled to oppose this application pursuant to section 444GA(2) of the Corporations Act may apply to be joined as a defendant to this proceeding by no later than 29 January 2020.
4.The Administrators' costs of and incidental to this application be costs and expenses of the DOCA.
It is necessary at this stage to provide some facts by way of background. What follows is largely taken from submissions filed by the plaintiffs on 7 February 2020. None of this material is controversial. Alita is a listed public company with 1,476,422,411 shares on issue to 5,204 shareholders. It also has 2,401 members on a sub‑register as a result of its listing on the Catalist Board of the Singapore Stock Exchange. Alita and its subsidiaries operated in a group structure. On 27 June 2019, the companies in the group entered into a deed of cross guarantee which had the effect of rendering each company liable for the debts owed to third parties by any of the companies in the group. Accordingly, the administrators have treated the assets and liabilities of the group on a consolidated (or pooled) basis for the purposes of analysing the interests of the various stakeholders in a liquidation scenario.
Alita was suspended from trading on 14 August 2019. On 28 August 2019, the directors of Alita and a number of its subsidiaries resolved to appoint administrators. The administrators resolved on a recapitalisation process, the details of which are set out in various affidavits but are not presently relevant. As part of the recapitalisation process the administrators sought an extension of the convening period and that order was made.
The recapitalisation process attracted a high number of interested parties. The administrators incurred expenses in running site tours and opening an online data room to provide the interested parties with information necessary to form a view on whether to put forward a deed of company arrangement proposal. Furthermore, time was taken to allow interested parties to assess Alita's position and if thought appropriate, put forward a DOCA proposal. The administrators received two competing proposals. In the various affidavits they are described as the CHEL/Liatam draft DOCA proposal and the Galaxy DOCA proposal.
CHEL was a secured lender to Alita. Subsequent to submitting the CHEL/Liatam draft DOCA proposal, CHEL's legal representatives wrote to the administrators saying they would enforce its rights under their securities should the administrators not obtain orders in relation to the 444GA application by 6 March 2020. So as at the date I made the orders set out above, there was a degree of urgency. There had been intervention by non‑parties who at one point objected to the application. After a brief flurry of activity these objections were withdrawn.
After considering the evidence, I was satisfied the orders sought by the administrators should be made. The administrators carefully considered the two competing DOCA proposals and determined that the CHEL/Liatam draft DOCA proposal delivered a superior return to creditors. The administrators also determined it was not in the creditor's interest to wind up the companies and bring the administration to an end. The CHEL/Liatam draft DOCA proposal, as with the Galaxy DOCA proposal, did not provide for payment of creditors in full. For example, under the CHEL/Liatam draft DOCA proposal, class E creditors were expected to receive returns of up to 10 cents in the dollar, while class C creditors were expected to receive between 10 cents and 37 cents in the dollar. Under both DOCA proposals there was a requirement for the transfer of 100% of the shares of Alita to the proponent. There was to be no distribution to shareholders of the company. The CHEL/Liatam draft DOCA proposal contained various conditions precedent including the 446GA application and ASIC granting relief from the operation of s 606 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
On 26 September 2019, Vaughan J made orders extending the time for convening the second meeting of creditors to 11 December 2019 or five business days thereafter. The administrators made that application on the understanding that Galaxy would not have supported any further extension to the convening period. The second meeting of creditors was held on 17 December 2019. The creditors voted, in both number and value, in favour of Alita and the Alita subsidiaries entering into a DOCA in substantially the same terms as they CHEL/Liatam draft DOCA proposal (my underlining). The CHEL/Liatam DOCA was executed by all parties on 17 December 2019 and the administrators were appointed as deed administrators.
On 27 September 2019, the administrators engaged two independent experts to provide a valuation of the assets of the Alita Group. The administrators adopted these independent valuations and used them to underpin their own expert report. The administrators concluded that the value of assets of Alita lies within the range of $43.24 million and $69.61 million with a preferred value of $56.33 million. The administrators also estimated that, in a liquidation scenario, the total indebtedness of the group (excluding intercompany loans) would lie within a range of $110.66 million and $86.86 million with $96.16 million adopted as the total indebtedness in a liquidation scenario. In other words, Alita (and the group) were hopelessly insolvent. Accordingly, the shares had no inherent value.
For the sake of completeness, I should also note that the administrators had investigated the reasons for the failure of the group. They reported Alita had take‑off agreements for its product. The counter party to those take‑off agreements had ceased taking shipments in accordance with the agreements. Without the counter party taking shipments in accordance with the take‑off agreements the group's failure was inevitable. It had to meet the costs of production. The spot market for lithium concentrate had deteriorated and there was no commercial market for Alita's products. The administrators did not identify any recovery actions that might be available in the liquidation scenario. There was nothing to suggest any action might lie against the directors. The simple fact was Alita was boxed in and it was a matter of making the best of what was a bad lot.
There the matter rested until 18 November 2020, when Liatam Mining Pty Ltd (sometimes described as an 'interested party') filed an interlocutory process. The orders sought in that process were as follows:
1.This application is made under section 447A(1) and 445A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) for orders that the amendments to the Deed of Company Arrangement dated 17 December 2019 in respect of Alita Resources Limited (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) (ACN 147 393 735), Tawana Resources Pty Ltd (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) (ACN 085 166 721) and Lithco No.2 Pty Ltd (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) (ACN 612 726 922) (together, the Companies) (DOCA) proposed by Liatam Mining Pty Ltd (ACN 637 907 503) (Interested Party) are valid.
2On the facts stated in the affidavit of Mr Guanghui Ji sworn 18 November 2020, the Interested Party seeks orders that:
2.1pursuant to section 447A of the Act, Part 5.3A of the Act is to operate in relation to the Companies as if:
2.1.1on or around 18 November 2020, the date for satisfaction of the Conditions Precedent (as defined in clause 7.1 of the DOCA) was extended by the Plaintiffs and the Interested Party to 30 November 2020 provided that this extension will immediately cease to apply in the event there is any enforcement of any security associated with the Lender Facility (as defined in clause 1.1 of the DOCA);
2.1.2section 445C(c) of the Act did not have the effect that the DOCA was terminated on or before 18 November 2020; and
2.1.3the terms of the DOCA continue to bind the Plaintiffs and the creditors of the Companies;
2.2pursuant to section 447A of the Act, Part 5.3A of the Act is to operate in relation to the Companies as if section 445A of the Act provided that the DOCA may be varied by an order of the Court;
2.3pursuant to section 445A of the Act as so varied and applied to the Companies, the DOCA be amended by:
2.3.1deleting clause 8.3.1;
2.3.2amending clause 8.4.4 to read 'Subject to clause 8.4.6, the Deed Administrators must transfer the Alita Shares to the Proponent (or its nominee or as it directs) in accordance with the orders of the Court';
2.3.3inserting a new clause 8.4.6 which reads 'The Deed Administrators are not required to transfer the Alita Shares in the manner required by clause 8.4.4 if the Proponent directs the Deed Administrators in writing not to transfer the Alita Shares'; and
2.3.4amending the date in clause 7.3, from '31 March 2020 (or such other date as the Deed Administrators and the Proponent may agree in writing)' to '30 November 2020 (or such other date as the Deed Administrators and the Proponent may agree in writing)',
(Amendments).
2.4pursuant to section 447A of the Act, Part 5.3A of the Act is to operate in relation to the Companies such that the DOCA containing the Amendments is valid;
2.5the Plaintiffs' costs of this application be costs in the administration of the Companies, otherwise there be no order as to costs; and
2.6the Proceedings be resolved

The application was brought on urgently on 19 November 2020. At that hearing a creditor, SMS Innovative Mining Pty Ltd (SMS), also an interested party, appeared. All of the parties were able to agree that order 1 in the interlocutory process could be made. However, counsel for SMS had not had the opportunity to take instructions and sought an adjournment of the matter. The matter was adjourned until 24 November 2020. By that time an affidavit of Mark Rowsthorn sworn 24 November 2020 had been filed on behalf of SMS. Liatam Mining had filed two affidavits of Zachary Sharp both sworn 24 November 2020. Together with the affidavit of Guanghui Ji sworn 18 November 2020, that was the evidence for Liatam Mining. After hearing argument I made orders in terms of par 2 of the interlocutory process. I did so over the strong objection of SMS. These reasons deal with why I made those orders.
To understand the submissions of SMS, it is necessary to say something more about the facts. At the time of Alita's collapse there were four major unsecured creditors. They had provided mining services to the company. In the DOCA these major creditors are referred to as the 'class C creditors'. As I indicated above, the administrators estimated that the dividend these class C creditors would receive under the DOCA ranged from 10 to 37 cents in the dollar.
Liatam Mining is an Australian proprietary company incorporated for the purposes of the DOCA. The company is controlled by Chee Hon Lee. The successful s 444GA application satisfied one of the conditions precedent to the DOCA becoming affective.
To obtain the support of the class C creditors for the proponents DOCA Alita, Liatam Mining and CHEL entered into a deed with class C creditors known as the 'Class C Creditors' Side Agreement'. It provided relevantly that the class C creditors must vote in favour of the proponents DOCA proposal. Clause 8 provided:
The companies undertake and agree to provide each of the participating creditors a first right of refusal on all future mining services contracts (Contracts), insofar as those Contracts relate to services that have been previously provided by each participating creditor to the companies.
SMS is one of the class C creditors under the DOCA. They submitted a proof of debt in an amount of just under $18 million owing under a mining services contract. Mr Rowsthorn on behalf of SMS says, and I accept, that the right of first refusal in cl 8 of the Class C Creditors' Side Agreement potentially had considerable commercial value. It meant SMS had a good prospect of obtaining the benefit of a future mining services agreement once Alita emerged from the DOCA and recommenced trading. It is however, worth noting there is nothing in the Class C Creditor's Side Agreement which indicates when Alita might start trading. So although the right had value, just what value it may have had is problematic. I will have more to say about this issue below.
In accordance with the Class C Creditors' Side Agreement, SMS voted in favour of the DOCA at the meeting of creditors on 17 December 2019. On 10 November 2020, SMS acquired all the rights of the other class C creditors pursuant to separate deeds of assignment. That means SMS is the only remaining class C creditor. In fact, the only other creditors are three continuing employees. All of the other creditors have been paid pursuant to the terms of the DOCA.
During the course of his submissions, counsel for Liatam referred to the class C creditors side agreement and in particular cl 18.16 of that agreement. That clause under the heading 'Assignment' reads as follows:
Except as expressly permitted by this document, a party must not assign any of its rights and obligations under this document without the prior written consent of the other parties. That consent may be given or withheld at a party's absolute discretion.
Counsel pointed out that Liatam Mining is a party to that agreement. They had not given their consent to SMS acquiring the interests of the other class C creditors. He submitted that it called into question whether or not SMS was entitled to claim to be the sole class C creditor. Having made that point, counsel did not make any further submissions as to how that issue might affect the outcome of the application. Apart then from noting the submission, I will make no further comment.
Counsel for SMS pointed out there were a number of important features of the DOCA. They are:
(a)the Lender Facility will be discharged;
(b)the Alita shares will be transferred to the proponent (or its nominee or as it directs);
(c)the Class C Creditors' Side Agreement will remain on foot;
(d)the deed administrators will remove the existing directors and appoint new directors as reasonably requested by the proponent; and
(e)the control of the group will revert to the directors within five days of the completion date.
It is clear these features are interrelated and SMS submits they were inserted in the DOCA to allow the objects of the DOCA to be achieved. Among those objectives, was maximising the chance of the company's continuing in existence and in turn allowing one of the main aims of the Class C Creditors' Side Agreement to be achieved - that is, providing the class C creditors with the opportunity to again provide mining services to the rehabilitative group.
SMS says the transfer of the Alita shares was important from a corporate governance perspective. It ensured that the proponent, who under the DOCA is entitled to direct the appointment of the directors, is also legally able, as the sole shareholder of Alita to remove them and appoint others in their stead. The DOCA contains provisions which expressly limit the right of the proponent to waive certain of these conditions precedent and it has provisions setting out what is to occur in the event the conditions precedent are not satisfied by an agreed date. The conditions precedent include Foreign Investment Review Board approval, leave under s 444GA and the granting of relief by ASIC pursuant to s 606 of the Corporations Act (that section contains a prima facie prohibition against the acquisition of relevant interests in voting shares). The DOCA provides that if any of the conditions precedent are not satisfied by 31 March 2020, or such later date as may be agreed between the deed administrators and the proponent, the deed administrators can either terminate the DOCA or call a meeting of creditors to consider varying or terminating the DOCA. The DOCA does not allow the proponent to unilaterally vary it. Nor does it provide the proponent with a right to waive all conditions precedent. As I have indicated, the DOCA provides that the three conditions precedent I have outlined, can only be waived by agreement between the deed administrators and the proponent.
Two of the conditions precedent have not been satisfied. There is no explanation in the evidence why this is so. However, once the amendments sought by Liatam Mining are made to the DOCA, both requirements would be otiose. The shareholders would remain in control of the company so there is no question of a prima facie breach of s 606 or any need for FIRB approval. It is to be noted however, that these conditions precedent still remain in the DOCA and have not been satisfied.

The term of the Lender Facility expired on 14 October 2020 and on 6 November 2020, CHEL advised the deed administrators that it was no longer prepared to forebear from enforcing its rights under the Lender Facility, unless the deed administrators agreed to vary the terms of the Lender Facility as set out in a draft deed of variation. The deed administrators have not agreed to the proposed variation. Furthermore, in correspondence CHEL indicated that if orders were not made to vary the DOCA as proposed, receivers and managers would be appointed on the afternoon of 24 November. In the end, for reasons which I will develop below, the prospect of appointment of receivers was a factor which I saw as relevant to making of the orders.
It was SMS's position that the amendments proposed to the DOCA were substantial. Counsel focused on three aspects. First, the shareholding. He pointed out SMS had entered into the Class C Creditors' Side Agreement and had voted in favour of the DOCA because it believed the proponent would be the sole shareholder of Alita. That was not now to be the case. There would be over 5,000 shareholders. Those shareholders would determine who would be the directors of the company. That was a fundamentally different position from what was anticipated by the DOCA.
This fed into the second point. The structure proposed under the amendments raised real issues of governance. Counsel submitted SMS had entered into the shareholders side agreement and has supported the DOCA because it was confident Alita, under the control of Liatam Mining, would honour the right of first refusal contained in the shareholders side agreement. With the shareholders having the right to determine who the directors of the company would be and with Liatam Mining having no overall control of Alita, it was concerned the right of first refusal might not be honoured.
Third, there was a concern that when Alita emerged from the DOCA, it would be insolvent. It certainly would be in default under the facility agreement. Whether it would be insolvent depended on whether or not CHEL insisted on repayment for the facility. If it did, there is no doubt Alita would be insolvent. But, if it did not, or if the facility was renegotiated before 30 November 2020, then it would not be insolvent.
This was, in the context of the application, a point of some importance. Based upon the evidence as it stood, I could not conclude Alita would inevitably be insolvent when it emerged from the DOCA. It might not even be in default if CHEL was prepared to either forebear of renegotiate the facility. But, it must be acknowledged that the uncertain position of Alita was a relevant factor in determining whether the orders ought be made.
Liatam submitted there was not substance in any of the objections raised by SMS. So far as the Class C Creditors' Side Agreement was concerned there was no evidence to suggest the terms of that agreement would not be met by Alita. As I have indicated, there was no temporal aspect to cl 8 of the Class C Creditors' Side Agreement. There was also nothing to suggest it would not bind the company no matter who were the directors and who held the shares. Counsel also pointed out Alita presently has no directors and new directors would have to be appointed before the DOCA completed. If that was not done, there would be no one to hand control back to. Insofar as the conditions precedent are concerned they can be waived by agreement between Liatam and the deed administrators. Such an agreement had been reached subject to court approval of the variations to the DOCA. As to the facility agreement, counsel noted that while the deed administrators and CHEL had been unable to reach agreement, CHEL had indicated that it was prepared to negotiate with a view to reaching agreement with new directors to provide a new facility and a forbearance arrangement. In any event, the position of CHEL had not changed ‑ that is to say, the proposed amendments did not affect the security position.
Turning then to the law, there was no dispute between the parties the pursuant to s 447A of the Corporations Act it was open to me to vary the DOCA. Section 447A is in very wide terms. Section 445A allows a variation of a DOCA by creditors. There are numerous decision in which judges have pointed out if a DOCA is to be amended it is preferable it be done by the creditors under s 445A. For instance, in Re Derwent Howard Media Pty Ltd, Barrett J put the position as follows:[1]
Generally speaking, however, the court should be reluctant to exercise this power (and thereby to deprive creditors of their role under s 445A) except in circumstances that are uncontentious, in the sense that no prejudice to creditors is involved: Re Paradox Digital Pty Ltd; Ex parte Smith [2001] WASC 182. That is the position here. Deferral of the 30 September 2011 deadline will avoid the possibility of untoward termination of the arrangement and preserve the basis of participation by creditors envisaged by the deed, as well as allowing time within which any proposal for substantive variation can be placed before creditors for consideration.
[1] Re Derwent Howard Media Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1164 [12].
It is not difficult to see why this approach should be adopted. Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act (within which both sections 445A and 447A appear) is headed 'Administration of a Company's Affairs with a view to executing a Deed of Company Arrangement'. What is striking about this part of the Act is the way in which it is creditor driven. The administrators act as facilitators of any arrangement which must be approved by the creditors. The legislature could have required court approval before any DOCA was effected. But it did not do so. It left matters in the hands of the creditors so they and they alone could determine whether it was possible to salvage the company's business. That being so, there is an understandable reluctance on the part of judges to override or sideline creditors by making orders under s 447A. Far better for the creditors themselves to vary the DOCA under s 445A.
But, there are circumstances when for one reason or another, court orders are appropriate. For instance, in Re Paradox Digital Pty Ltd; Ex Parte Smith, Owen J said:[2]
The next question is whether the discretion should be exercised in that way. In my view, it should. In Mulvaney, there was no effect on the creditors. That is not the case here. There will be an effect on creditors because the return which was estimated for creditors was based on receipts of approximately $1,000,000. This will now be reduced to $700,000. Nonetheless, I accept that the prudent and appropriate course for the administrators to take if the undertaking cannot be sold would be to close the doors. I accept also the commercial reality that this would destroy the goodwill of the company and therefore, to a significant extent, the realisable value of the assets. It would not be feasible to convene a meeting of the creditors of the company to consider the variation.
[2] Re Paradox Digital Pty Ltd; Ex Parte Smith [2001] WASC 182, [16].
It is clear his Honour regarded two matters as of prime importance. First, commercial reality. If he declined to make orders then creditors would suffer and there would be no net benefit. Second, there was a question of timing. There simply was not time to convene a meeting of creditors to vary the DOCA in the way proposed.
Both factors were present in this case. Without a variation to the DOCA there was a real prospect CHEL would appoint receivers. What might then follow from that appointment is unclear. But, it is difficult to see that anyone - the Class C Creditors included - would be better off. Experience suggests otherwise. Furthermore, given the prospect of imminent action by CHEL there was no real prospect of delaying any amendment to the DOCA pending a meeting of creditors.
The outcome of this application is by no means perfect. I have already mentioned the uncertain position created by the retention of over 5,000 shareholders as against one single shareholder who would be responsible for the company. It is less than ideal that a company should emerge from a DOCA in default under finance agreements. There are presently no directors and who those directors might be and what their intentions are with respect to the company is unknown. But, variation of the DOCA still, on balance, is a better option than allowing the company to fall into receivership with all the uncertainty that would involve.
There is one final matter which I should mention. During the course of the hearing counsel for the Deed Administrators indicated a non‑binding DOCA proposal had been received from Remagen Capital Management Pty Ltd. I was advised from the bar table that Remagen had not participated in the process which led to the present DOCA being entered into. Counsel for Liatam expressed the view that Remagen was in some way associated with SMS. Appearing as Annexure A to Liatam's submissions was a document that sought to explain 'various relationships' between SMS and Remagen. Other than acknowledging there may be some connection between the two groups there would seem to be nothing sinister in the connection. The problem with the Remagen proposal is that it comes, to use counsel's phrase, 'at a minute to midnight'. Presumably the purpose of the proposal was to demonstrate if amendments were not made to the DOCA there was still a prospect that Alita could be rescued. The difficulties with that submission are obvious. The proposal contained no detail. It required finance of at least $50 million, and perhaps as much as $70 million, with no indication of where the funds might come from. Really, it was too vague and too late to be of any relevance to the matters in issue.
For these reasons I made orders as sought by Liatam Mining.
Within seven (7) days of the publication of these reasons the parties ought file short submissions on costs.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

CB
Associate to Master Sanderson

27 NOVEMBER 2020

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: RE ALITA RESOURCES LTD; EX PARTE RICHARD SCOTT TUCKER as joint and several administrator of ALITA RESOURCES LTD (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT) [2020] WASC 430 (S)
CORAM:   MASTER SANDERSON
HEARD:   26 NOVEMBER 2020
DELIVERED          :   26 NOVEMBER 2020
PUBLISHED           :   3 DECEMBER 2020
FILE NO/S:   COR 251 of 2019

EX PARTE
RICHARD SCOTT TUCKER as joint and several administrator of ALITA RESOURCES LTD (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT)
JOHN ALLAN BUMBAK as joint and several administrator of ALITA RESOURCES LTD (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT)
First Plaintiffs
RICHARD SCOTT TUCKER as joint and several administrator of TAWANA RESOURCES PTY LTD (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT)
JOHN ALLAN BUMBAK as joint and several administrator of TAWANA RESOURCES PTY LTD (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT)
Second Plaintiffs
RICHARD SCOTT TUCKER as joint and several administrator of LITHCO NO 2 PTY LTD (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT)
JOHN ALLAN BUMBAK as joint and several administrator of LITHCO NO 2 PTY LTD (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT)
Third Plaintiffs

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for suspension order - Turns on own facts