Re Dawning Investments Pty Ltd and Dawning Developments Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2023] VSC 783
•20 December 2023 (given ex tempore, revised 21 December 2023)
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT
CORPORATIONS LIST
S ECI 2020 03674
IN THE MATTER of DAWNING INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 144 681 032)
BETWEEN:
| GRACE YANG | Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim |
| v | |
| XU DONG ZHENG & ORS (according to the attached Schedule) | Defendants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim |
---
JUDGE: | Hetyey AsJ |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 20 December 2023 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 20 December 2023 (given ex tempore, revised 21 December 2023) |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re Dawning Investments Pty Ltd and Dawning Developments Pty Ltd (No 2) |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VSC 783 |
---
CORPORATIONS — Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘Act’) — External administration —Liquidator of two companies temporarily rendered incapable of performing duties due to medical episode — Orders made by Federal Court of Australia appointing special purpose liquidators to deal with incapacity — Where liquidator now recovered — ss 90-15(1), 90-15(3)(b) and (c) of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) in Sch 2 of the Act — Application by liquidator to cease office and for joint and several liquidators to be appointed in his place — Where nominated replacement liquidators are current special purpose liquidators — Where resignation and replacement of liquidator ordinarily under ss 473 and 473A(1) of Act — Discussion of alternative approaches — Orders made under s 90-15 — Where one company trustee of unit trust and liquidator previously appointed by this Court as receiver and manager to assets of trust — Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) — s 37 — Orders sought for current receiver and manager to be replaced by joint receivers and managers — Ancillary orders dispensing with requirements under rr 70-30 to 70-40 of the Insolvency Practice Rules (Corporations) 2016 (Cth).
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant, Peter Andrew Goodin in his capacity as both liquidator of the Second and Third Defendants and receiver and manager of the Dawning Developments Unit Trust | Mr M Lhuede, solicitor | Piper Alderman |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr P Wu, solicitor | Hiways Lawyers |
| For the First Defendant | Mr D Luna, solicitor | Luna & Xia Lawyers |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1
Background and procedural history............................................................................................... 1
Relevant provisions and principles................................................................................................ 5
Consideration...................................................................................................................................... 7
Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 11
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
On 6 December 2022, I made orders for the winding up of Dawning Investments Pty Ltd (in liq) (‘Investments’) and Dawning Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) (‘Developments’) (collectively, ‘Companies’) pursuant to ss 232, 233(1), 461(1)(f) and (k) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘Corporations Act’) and for the appointment of Mr Peter Andrew Goodin as liquidator of each of the Companies (‘December 2022 orders’). At the same time, I ordered pursuant to s 37 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) (‘Supreme Court Act’) or, alternatively, ss 232 and 233(1)(h) of the Corporations Act, that Mr Goodin be appointed as receiver and manager of the assets and undertaking of the trust styled the ‘Dawning Developments Unit Trust’, as established by deed dated 30 May 2016 (‘Unit Trust’), and in respect of which Developments was the trustee. The orders were made following the delivery of the Court’s judgment on 28 October 2022.[1]
[1]Re Dawning Investments Pty Ltd and Dawning Developments Pty Ltd (2022) 68 VR 226; [2022] VSC 641.
Pursuant to the liberty to apply reserved by my orders, Mr Goodin (‘applicant’) now makes an application to bring his commissions to an end, for the Court to appoint replacement liquidators to the Companies and receivers and managers to the Unit Trust, and for ancillary relief.
Background and procedural history
Significant events have transpired since Mr Goodin was first appointed as liquidator to the Companies and receiver and manager to the Unit Trust. In May 2023, Mr Goodin experienced a serious medical episode that rendered him incapable of performing his duties. Specifically, he fell into a coma and was admitted to the intensive care unit at Box Hill Hospital and placed on life support. He has now made a full recovery.
During the period of his incapacity, Mr Goodin’s lawyer, Mr Michael Lhuede of Piper Alderman, with the assistance of Mr Goodin’s son Mr Mitchell Goodin, made an application to the Federal Court of Australia to have liquidators and trustees in bankruptcy temporarily appointed to the various bankrupt estates, liquidations and other external administrations to which Mr Goodin was appointed. On 2 June 2023, McElwaine J of the Federal Court made orders, among other things, appointing Mr Nicholas Giasoumi and Mr Shane Leslie Deane as special purpose administrators, deed administrators or liquidators (as the case may be) to the companies in respect of which Mr Goodin had been appointed as liquidator or other external administrator, including the Companies (‘June Federal Court orders’). The purpose of the appointments was to ensure the relevant administrations could be appropriately managed until Mr Goodin was able to resume his duties.
At the time of their appointment as special purpose liquidators of the Companies (‘SPLs’), neither Mr Giasoumi nor Mr Deane were aware that Mr Goodin had also been appointed as receiver and manager of the assets and undertaking of the Unit Trust. They only became aware of this fact after they commenced their investigation into the affairs of the Companies.
Developments is the sole registered proprietor of the following properties, held by it as trustee of the Unit Trust:
(a) 5 Willowbank Court, Templestowe VIC 3106. This is a residential property presently occupied by Qian Liu who claims to have entered into a contract to purchase that property. Ms Liu has recently agreed to vacate the property in exchange for the refund of the deposit paid in respect of the purported contract of sale;
(b) 93-99 Rufus Street, Epping VIC 3076. This comprises two lots: a northern lot with a warehouse that has historically been occupied by a garden supply business; and a rear lot used to store trucks and other machinery. An agreement has recently been reached with the occupiers of each lot for vacant possession of the property; and
(c) 91 Whittens Lane, Doncaster VIC 3108 (‘Whittens Lane’). The property is a potential development site and there is a vacant house located on it. Following a public auction on 23 September 2023, the property was sold for $1.6 million with the consent of the National Australia Bank which holds a mortgage over the title. The settlement of the sale is six months from the date of the contract.
Since their appointment, the SPLs have had regular conferences with Mr Goodin – in person, remotely and by telephone – and have kept Mr Goodin appraised of their work with respect to the Companies and matters concerning the Unit Trust.
Whilst Mr Goodin has been convalescing, substantial work has been undertaken by the SPLs. The affidavit of Mr Deane affirmed 11 December 2023 identifies specific tasks undertaken by the SPLs in the conduct of the liquidation of the Companies and the receivership. Those tasks include dealing with the properties held by Developments and responding to a proceeding brought in this Court against Developments by New Sunshine Pty Ltd (‘New Sunshine’), seeking recovery of alleged outstanding loan amounts of approximately $11.9 million (plus interest and costs).[2] Mr Goodin has reviewed the affidavit of Mr Deane and deposes he is satisfied all the tasks performed by the SPLs, to the extent they fall within the ambit of the receivership of the Unit Trust, have been undertaken at his direction and under his agency and authority as the duly appointed receiver and manager in accordance with the December 2022 orders.
[2]See Supreme Court of Victoria Proceeding No S ECI 2021 01040.
On 27 October 2023, Mr Goodin made a further application to the Federal Court to bring the temporary appointments made in the June Federal Court orders to an end. Mr Goodin regained his health by that time and wished to resume his role as liquidator and trustee of the relevant companies and bankrupt estates. Orders were made on 2 November 2023 by McEvoy J, terminating the appointments of Mr Giasoumi and Mr Deane as special purpose administrators, deed administrators or liquidators of the companies to which Mr Goodin had been appointed (‘November Federal Court orders’). However, a notable exception were the Companies the subject of this proceeding. Order 8 of the November Federal Court orders is in these terms:
Subject to further order pursuant to s 90-15(1) of Schedule 2 to the Corporations Act, the appointment of Nicholas Giasoumi and Shane Deane as joint and several special purpose liquidators of Dawning Developments Pty Ltd (In liquidation) and Dawning Investments Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (items 16 and 17 respectively of Schedule 3) be terminated upon the applicant ceasing to be the liquidator of those companies.
In his accompanying reasons,[3] McEvoy J observed that this Court had appointed Mr Goodin as receiver and manager of the property of the Unit Trust. His Honour also appeared to accept the submission made on behalf of Mr Goodin that any application in respect of the Companies and the Unit Trust would more appropriately be made in this Court.[4]
[3]Goodin, In the matter of Regulated Debtors' Estates [2023] FCA 1325, [13].
[4]Ibid.
In light of his recent heath crisis, Mr Goodin has resolved to streamline his insolvency practice and limit the number of external administrations for which he is responsible. Further, Mr Goodin and the SPLs agree that, given the extent of work undertaken by the SPLs since their appointment and for reasons of continuity, it is in the interests of creditors that Mr Giasoumi and Mr Deane assume ongoing responsibility for the external administrations of the Companies and the receivership of the Unit Trust.
Accordingly, by summons dated 13 December 2023, Mr Goodin seeks the following relief:
(a) an order pursuant to s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (‘IPS’) in Sch 2 of the Corporations Act, that the appointment of the SPLs to the Companies be terminated;
(b) an order pursuant to s 90-15 of the IPS, that his appointment cease and that Mr Giasoumi and Mr Deane be appointed as joint and several liquidators in his place;
(c) an order pursuant to s 37 of the Supreme Court Act that his appointment as receiver and manager of the property of the Unit Trust be terminated and that Mr Giasoumi and Mr Deane be appointed as joint and several receivers and managers in his place, with such appointment to cease upon the conclusion of the winding up of Developments; and
(d) further orders concerning the scope of the powers of Mr Giasoumi and Mr Deane in their capacity as joint and several receivers and managers and their associated remuneration.
The summons is supported by: the affidavit of Mr Goodin sworn 11 December 2023; the affidavits of Mr Shane Leslie Deane affirmed on 11 and 12 December 2023; the affidavit of Sebastian Alexander Clarke (solicitor) sworn 20 December 2023; and consents to act as joint and several liquidators and joint and several receivers and managers signed by Mr Giasoumi and Mr Deane on 18 December 2023. The summons was listed before me today on an urgent basis.[5]
[5]Because of the specific relief sought under s 37 of the Supreme Court Act, on 18 December 2023, Connock J referred the summons to an Associate Judge for hearing and determination pursuant to r 77.05 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) and r 16.1(3) of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 2013 (Vic).
The parties to the proceeding have also been served with the summons and supporting material and consent to the relief sought. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (‘ASIC’) has also been provided notice of the application in accordance with r 2.8 of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 2023 (Vic). ASIC does not propose to appear or intervene in the proceeding and considers the matter to be properly left for the determination of the Court.
The creditors of each of the Companies have not been formally notified of this application by way of circular or other means. However, New Sunshine, which claims to be a significant creditor of Developments, has been informally notified via its lawyers, who are also the lawyers for the plaintiff.
Relevant provisions and principles
Section 473 of the Corporations Act provides that ‘[a] liquidator appointed by the Court may resign’.
Section 473A(1)(a) of the Corporations Act states that '[a] vacancy in the office of a liquidator appointed by the Court may be filled by…the Court’. Section 532 relevantly provides:
(2)Subject to this section, a person must not, except with the leave of the Court, seek to be appointed, or act, as liquidator of a company:
…
(b)if the person is, otherwise than in his or her capacity as liquidator, a creditor of the company or of a related body corporate in an amount exceeding $5,000; …
Section 90-15 of the IPS relevantly states:
(1)The Court may make such orders as it thinks fit in relation to the external administration of a company.
…
(2)The Court may exercise the power under subsection (1):
(a) on its own initiative, during proceedings before the Court; or
(b)on application under section 90-20.
…
(3)Without limiting subsection (1), those orders may include any one or more of the following:
…
(b)an order that a person cease to be the external administrator of the company;
(c)an order that another registered liquidator be appointed as the external administrator of the company;
…
Section 90-20 of the IPS specifies who may apply for an order under s 90-15. Those persons include:
(a)a person with a financial interest in the external administration of the company;
…
(d)an officer of the company;[6]
…
[6]An ‘officer’ is defined in s 9 of the Act to include a liquidator of a company.
Section 37 of the Supreme Court Act states:
(1)The Court may by order, whether interlocutory or final, grant an injunction or appoint a receiver if it is just and convenient to do so.
(2)An order made under subsection (1) may be made either unconditionally or on such terms and conditions as the Court thinks just.
Consideration
Before dealing with the substantive relief sought in the summons, there are a number of preliminary matters which I will briefly deal with.
As a liquidator and officer of each of the Companies, Mr Goodin plainly has standing to bring this application under s 90-15.
An alternative or conventional course may have been for Mr Goodin to resign as liquidator of the Companies under s 473 of the Corporations Act and for the resulting vacancy to be filled by the Court under s 473A(1). This is particularly so given the specific operation of ss 473 and 473A(1) when compared to the more general application of s 90-15. As a matter of statutory interpretation, a specific provision will override a general one and general words are taken not to be intended to disturb express stipulations.[7] However, whilst the statutory provisions in question appear to cover similar ground, they are not clearly inconsistent in their terms.
[7]See Herzfeld, P and Prince, T, Interpretation, (Thomson Reuters, t/as Lawbook Co, 2nd ed, 2020) [6.180], referring to the Latin maxims generalibus specialia derogant and clausula generalis non refertur ad expressa, respectively.
Section 90-15 is broad in its scope and contemplates not only the exercise of judicial discretion but also the determination of substantive rights.[8] In GDK Projects Pty Ltd, in the matter of Umberto Pty Ltd (in liq) v Umberto Pty Ltd (in liq),[9] Farrell J observed that the power in s 90-15(1) is, ‘in its terms, unconstrained’.[10] Although the replacement of a liquidator under s 90-15 might ordinarily occur in a disciplinary context,[11] in Re Equiticorp Australia Ltd (in liq) and other companies[12] Black J observed that the orders permitting the appointment of another liquidator under s 90-15 of the IPS correspond to a longstanding power of the Court to make orders for the appointment of a new liquidator on the resignation of an existing liquidator.[13] In Borg v de Vries (Trustee), in the matter of the Bankrupt Estate of David Morton Bertram,[14] White J noted that the power to remove and replace a liquidator under the now repealed s 503 of the Corporations Act and its legislative predecessors was not confined to circumstances of demonstrated error or shortcomings by a liquidator, but was instead exercised by reference to the interests of the liquidation.[15]
[8]See Re Polat Enterprises Pty Ltd (in liq) [2020] VSC 485, [31] (Hetyey AsJ) and Re Barokes Pty Ltd (in liq) [2020] VSC 555, [31] (Hetyey AsJ). See also Michael Murray and Jason Harris, Keay’s Insolvency: Personal and Corporate Law and Practice (Lawbook, 11th ed, 2022) [10.335].
[9]GDK Projects Pty Ltd (in liq), in the matter of Umberto Pty Ltd(in liq)v Umberto Pty Ltd (in liq) [2018] FCA 541.
[10]Ibid [33] (Farrell J).
[11]Section 90-15 is found within Div 90 of Part 3 of the IPS which is concerned with the review of the external administration of a company. Section 90-15 confers upon the Court a range of specific disciplinary powers it may exercise. For example, orders may be made in relation to: the replacement of an external administrator (s 90-15(3)(b) and (c)) having regard to matters relevant to the conduct of an external administrator, as identified in s 90-15(3); costs of an action taken by the external administrator (s 90-15(3)(d)); any loss that the company has sustained because of a breach of duty by the external administrator (s 90-15(3)(e)); and an order requiring a person to repay to a company, or the creditors of the company, remuneration paid to the person as external administrator of the company (s 90-15(3)(f)).
[12][2017] NSWSC 1456.
[13]Ibid [2].
[14][2018] FCA 2116.
[15]Ibid [28], endorsed in Frigger v Trenfield (No 10) [2021] FCA 1500, [552] (Jackson J).
In view of the above, I consider that the broad power found in s 90-15 may, in appropriate cases, be exercised to facilitate the resignation and/or replacement of liquidators in a range of situations.
Moreover, whilst ss 473 and 473A(1) may be called upon in the event of a retirement and resignation of a liquidator,[16] it was submitted by Mr Lhuede that the applicant is not seeking to retire or resign. Instead, he is seeking the orderly transfer of his formal responsibilities as liquidator to replacement liquidators who had carriage of the liquidations of the Companies during his incapacity. I therefore accept the circumstances of this case are different and do not clearly fall under ss 473 and 473A(1). It was further submitted that if relief is refused under s 90-15, Mr Goodin will elect to either make application under ss 473 and 473A(1) or continue as liquidator of the Companies. However, were the latter to occur, there would be an unavoidable duplication of some work already performed by the SPLs.
[16]See Re ACN 120 426 173 Pty Ltd (formerly known as UBU Communications) & Ors [2022] VSC 640 (AsJ Hetyey).
In my view, s 90-15 is capable of seamlessly achieving the same ultimate outcome as ss 473 and 473A(1) – the replacement of Mr Goodin as liquidator – without the need for Mr Goodin to formally resign and for a vacancy in office to arise. Further, the power in s 90-15 is sufficiently broad to enable the termination of the appointment of the SPLs as a precursor to their formal and ongoing appointment as liquidators of the Companies, which cannot otherwise be achieved under ss 473 and 473A(1) of the legislation.
That said, on one reading of order 8 of the November Federal Court orders, there would be no need to formally terminate the appointments of the SPLs because this would automatically occur upon the cessation of Mr Goodin’s appointment. Nevertheless, I also note that order 8 is prefaced with the words: ‘[s]ubject to further order pursuant to s 90-15(1)’ and that McEvoy J specifically contemplated in his reasons that a further application concerning Mr Goodin’s appointment to the Companies should properly be made in this Court. Moreover, the applicant submits, and I accept, it would be sensible for all the necessary orders concerning the appointments of liquidators to the Companies, and receivers and managers of the Unit Trust, to be made in a single set of orders in one proceeding, rather than in multiple orders across proceedings in different jurisdictions.
As a final preliminary matter, I do not consider that Mr Giasoumi and Mr Deane require leave under s 532(2) of the Corporations Act to be appointed as joint and several liquidators of the Companies. I accept the applicant’s submission that to the extent Mr Giasoumi and Mr Deane are creditors of the Companies, they are creditors in their capacity as liquidators. A special purpose liquidator is also a liquidator of a company, albeit appointed for a specific purpose.[17]
[17]Re Aus Streaming Ltd (in liq) [2022] VSC 182, [24] (Hetyey AsJ). See In the matter of Umberto Pty Ltd (in liq) and Re Aus Streaming (In Liq) [2020] VSC 313 (Connock J) as examples of special purpose liquidators being appointed by the Court for defined purposes.
I turn then to the substantive relief sought in the summons. In my opinion, it is appropriate that the relief be granted for the following reasons.
First, having discharged their duties during the period of Mr Goodin’s incapacity, there is no reason for the appointments of the SPLs to continue. Their appointments will be formally terminated accordingly.
Secondly, in view of: (a) Mr Goodin’s intention to streamline his insolvency practice; and (b) the desirability of promoting the efficiency and continuity of the external administrations of the Companies; it is appropriate the appointment of Mr Goodin as liquidator of the Companies cease and that Mr Giasoumi and Mr Deane be appointed in his place as joint and several liquidators. As a result of the work they have undertaken as SPLs, Mr Giasoumi and Mr Deane are familiar with the affairs of the Companies. I accept the submission made by the plaintiff’s solicitor, Mr Wu, that were the appointments of the SPLs to cease and Mr Goodin to remain as liquidator of the Companies, Mr Goodin would need to ‘catch up’ which would result in some duplication of work and associated delay in the liquidations.
Thirdly, whilst the creditors of each of the Companies have not been formally notified of this application, I do not consider that the change of liquidators will result in any readily identifiable prejudice to the creditors or the Companies. To the contrary, I accept the applicant’s submission (endorsed by the plaintiff) that the interests of creditors of the Companies would be best served by this outcome. However, relief will be conditional on Nicholas Giasoumi and Shane Leslie Deane sending a circular letter to each of the known creditors of the Companies notifying them of the making of the orders within five business days. There will be liberty to apply to any person who can demonstrate a sufficient interest to modify the Court’s orders, within 28 days of those orders being made and on not less than 48 hours' notice to the lawyers acting for the applicant.
To minimise the costs associated with the change of liquidators, it is appropriate to grant Mr Giasoumi and Mr Deane a dispensation under s 90-15(1) from any requirement to reissue information already provided by Mr Goodin to creditors.
Lastly, Mr Goodin’s appointment as receiver and manager of the property of the Unit Trust should also be terminated and Mr Giasoumi and Mr Deane should be appointed as joint and several receivers and managers in his stead. In my view, because of their work to date, the appointment of Mr Giasoumi and Mr Deane as joint and several receivers and managers of the Unit Trust will serve to optimise the conduct of the liquidation of Developments and facilitate the timely sale of the assets of the Unit Trust.
In that regard, I note that in the event of the Court making the orders sought, Mr Giasoumi and Mr Deane have instructed their solicitors to immediately apply to the Court for approval under s 477(2B) of the Corporations Act to enter into arrangements for the sale of the properties owned by Developments, including approval, now for then, to enter into the extant contract for sale of Whittens Lane on terms that include a six month settlement. When it is ready, such application can be brought on proper material and with notice to creditors and affected parties.
I also note Mr Goodin’s summons does not seek an order that the costs of the application be costs in the winding up of the Companies in liquidation. Instead, it is understood that Mr Goodin’s lawyers are acting in a pro bono capacity (as they did in the earlier Federal Court applications). The Court is grateful for their assistance.
Conclusion
I will make orders on the terms set out in the Annexure to these reasons.
ANNEXURE – Orders to the judgment
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Pursuant to s 90-15(1) of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (‘IPS’) in Schedule 2 to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘Corporations Act’):
(a)the appointment of Nicholas Giasoumi and Shane Leslie Dean as joint and several special purpose liquidators of Dawning Investments Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) and Dawning Developments Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (together, ‘Companies’) be terminated; and
(b)the appointment of Peter Andrew Goodin as liquidator of Dawning Investments Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) and Dawning Developments Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) cease and in his place Nicholas Giasoumi and Shane Leslie Deane be appointed as joint and several liquidators.
Pursuant to s 90-15 of the IPS, Nicholas Giasoumi and Shane Leslie Deane are not required to perform tasks required by ss 70-30 to 70-40 of the Insolvency Practice Rules (Corporations) 2016 (Cth), which have already been performed by Mr Goodin in the liquidations of the Companies.
Pursuant to s 37 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic):
(a)the appointment of Peter Andrew Goodin as receiver and manager of the property of the Dawning Developments Unit Trust (‘Unit Trust’) be terminated and in his place Nicholas Giasoumi and Shane Leslie Deane be appointed joint and several receivers and managers, with such appointment to cease upon the conclusion of the winding up of Dawning Developments Pty Ltd (In Liquidation);
(b)as joint and several receivers and managers, Nicholas Giasoumi and Shane Leslie Deane be granted:
(i)those powers set out in ss 420(1) and (2) of the Corporations Act as if the property of the Unit Trust were property of a corporation;
(ii)the powers of a liquidator in respect of property of a company pursuant to s 477(2) of the Corporations Act, including the power to do all things necessary and convenient to effect the sale or realisation of Unit Trust property; and
(iii)the power to apply the proceeds from the sale or other realisation of Unit Trust property to discharge the liabilities of Dawning Developments Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) which were incurred in its capacity as trustee of the Unit Trust in accordance with the priorities set out in Subdivision D of Division 6 of Part 5.6 of the Corporations Act.
Any claim of Nicholas Giasoumi and Shane Leslie Deane to remuneration in acting as agents for Peter Andrew Goodin in his capacity as receiver and manager of the Unit Trust be deemed and treated as a claim to remuneration in acting as joint and several receivers and managers of the Unit Trust.
Nicholas Giasoumi and Shane Leslie Deane shall provide the Australian Securities and Investments Commission with a copy of these Orders within four business days.
Nicholas Giasoumi and Shane Leslie Deane shall give notice of these Orders by circular sent by ordinary post or email within five business days of the making of these Orders to each of the known creditors of Dawning Investments Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) and Dawning Developments Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) and the Unit Trust, persons known to be claiming to be creditors of those companies and the Unit Trust, and persons known to be primary beneficiaries of the Unit Trust.
There be liberty to apply to any person who can demonstrate sufficient interest to modify any of the above Orders within 28 days of those Orders being made, on not less than 48 hours’ notice to the lawyers acting for the applicant.
Liberty to apply generally.
No order as to costs.
SCHEDULE OF PARTIES
| S ECI 2020 03674 | |
| BETWEEN: | |
| GRACE YANG | Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim |
| - v - | |
| XU DONG ZHENG | First Defendant/First Plaintiff by Counterclaim |
| DAWNING INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 144 681 032) | Second Defendant/Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim |
| DAWNING DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 612 703 894) | Third Defendant/Third Plaintiff by Counterclaim |
0
11
10