Re Environinvest Ltd (No. 5)

Link copied
Case Copied 11 min read
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT

List E
No. 2384 of 2010

IN THE MATTER OF ENVIRONINVEST LIMITED
(RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 080 743 791)

ENVIRONINVEST LIMITED
(RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION)
(ACN 080 743 791) (IN ITS CAPACITY AS RESPONSIBLE ENTITY OF EACH OF THE MANAGED INVESTMENT SCHEMES LISTED IN SCHEDULE 1)
First Plaintiff
JAMES PATRICK DOWNEY (IN HIS CAPACITY AS SCHEME LIQUIDATOR OF EACH OF THE MANAGED INVESTMENT SCHEMES LISTED IN SCHEDULE 1) Second Plaintiff
MARKO YURI MISKO & ORS Defendants

---

JUDGE:

FERGUSON J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

21 September 2011

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

21 September 2011 (Revised 27 September 2011)

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Re Environinvest Ltd (No. 5)

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2011] VSC 474

---

CORPORATIONS – Managed Investment Scheme – Winding up by a person appointed under s 601NF(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – Approval of variation of mediated agreement as to distribution of funds in the winding up – Approval of a proposal for relinquishment of interest in scheme property for fixed sum - Directions in winding up under s 601NF(2) of the Corporations Act.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs Mr S Rubenstein Norton Rose
For the Receivers and Managers
of the First Plaintiff
Mr H Austin Minter Ellison
For the Defendants No appearance

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

  1. The first plaintiff, Environinvest Limited, is the responsible entity of a number of failed managed investment schemes for growing and harvesting timber plantations.  James Patrick Downey, who is the second plaintiff, is the liquidator of Environinvest and also the liquidator appointed to wind up the schemes.  The scheme relevant to this application is the Primary Yield Eucalypt Project (“PYEP”).

  1. The collapse of Environinvest led to numerous proceedings in this Court[1] and a number of orders for costs were made in the proceedings.

    [1]Supreme Court Proceedings 8734 and 9141 of 2008 and this proceeding, 2384 of 2010.

  1. In this proceeding, Mr Downey has previously sought various directions and orders, including in respect of the approval of his costs, expenses and remuneration, the allocation of funds from the sale of trees, and the ranking of other claims for costs and expenses.  The claimants included Mark Francis Xavier Mentha and Craig Peter Shepard (“the Receivers”).  They are the receivers and managers of the assets and undertaking of Environinvest.  The Receivers were appointed under a registered charge by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd.  Other claimants included ABL Nominees Pty Ltd and the receivers and managers appointed by it to the assets of Primary Yield Finance Pty Ltd (“the PYF Receivers”).  Primary Yield Finance had made loans to investors in the various Environinvest schemes.  A final group of those interested in the distribution of the funds were certain of the investors in the Environinvest schemes who are known as the Growers (some of whom had costs orders in their favour and some…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re Environinvest Ltd (No. 5) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2011] VSC 474
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Environinvest Limited, which had been wound up by an administrator appointed under section 601NF(1) of the Corporations Act 2001. The dispute centred on the approval of a variation to a mediated agreement regarding the distribution of funds following the winding up of the company, as well as the approval of a proposal for the relinquishment of interest in scheme property for a fixed sum. The court was also asked to provide directions in the winding up of the company in accordance with section 601NF(2) of the Act.

The legal issues before the court encompassed whether the court should approve the proposed variation to the mediated agreement for the distribution of funds, considering the circumstances surrounding the winding up of the company. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the proposal for relinquishment of interest in scheme property for a fixed sum was in the best interest of the company and its creditors. The court also needed to decide on the appropriate directions to be given in the winding up of the company.

The court approved the variation to the mediated agreement for the distribution of funds, noting that the proposed changes were reasonable and equitable, taking into account the interests of all parties involved. The court found that the proposal for the relinquishment of interest in scheme property for a fixed sum was in the best interest of the company and its creditors, and approved it accordingly. Furthermore, the court provided directions for the winding up of the company, ensuring that the process was conducted in an orderly and efficient manner.

The court's final orders included the approval of the variation to the mediated agreement for the distribution of funds, the approval of the proposal for the relinquishment of interest in scheme property for a fixed sum, and the provision of directions for the winding up of the company. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the circumstances of the case and the interests of all parties involved.

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.