CORPORATIONS – Application under s 447A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for a modified application of s 443A(1)(a) to enable administrator to incur obligations without personal liability to facilitate company’s business to continue as a going concern so as to benefit creditors
Re Ansett Australia Limited (all admin apptd) and Mentha (As Administrator) (2001) 40 ACSR 389 Re Spyglass Management Group Pty Limited (2004) 51 ACSR 432 Sims; Re Huon Corporation Pty Ltd (admins apptd) (2006) 58 ACSR 620
PARTIES:
Nicholas Craig Malanos (in his capacity as administrator of Lanmac Contracting Pty Limited (Administrator Appointed) ACN 093 622 005
FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 3708/2007
COUNSEL:
A.P.P. Lo Surdo (Plaintiff)
SOLICITORS:
Kemp Strang (Plaintiff)
- 5 -
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION CORPORATIONS LIST
HAMMERSCHLAG J
19 JULY 2007
3708/2007 NICHOLAS CRAIG MALANOS (IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF LANMAC CONTRACTING PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTED) ACN 093 622 005
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application by the Administrator of Lanmac Contracting Pty Limited (Administrator Appointed) (“the Company”) under section 447A of the Corporations Act (Cth) 2001 (‘the Act”) for an order that Pt 5.3A of the Act is to operate in relation to the Company as if section 443A(1)(a) provides that:
(a) Advances and other financial accommodation to be made by James Richard Clouten to the Plaintiff in his capacity as Administrator of the Company in accordance with aFunding Deed (“Deed”), are debts incurred by the Administrator in the performance and exercise of his function and powers as Administrator for services rendered.
(b) Notwithstanding order 1(a), if the property of the Company is insufficient to meet the debt the subject of the Deed after payment of all other liabilities for which the plaintiff as Administrator may be personally liable under section 443A of the Act, then the Plaintiff shall not be personally liable under section 443A of the Act to James Richard Clouten in his capacity as funder pursuant to the Deed, to the extent of that insufficiency.
2 The circumstances giving rise to the application and the desirability of the orders sought are dealt with in some detail in the affidavit of Mr Malanos, sworn 19 July 2007, and a series of documents which are exhibited to it. Essentially, and to put it in brief terms, the Administrator is of the view that it is in the interests of creditors that he obtain funding to allow the Company to complete and obtain the benefits of certain contracts which it has, without which the contracts would not be completed, and which would more than likely be terminated by the counter parties.
3 Mr Malanos deposes to the fact that he has been informed by Mr Clouten, who is the sole director of the Company, that he intends to propose that the…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Re Malanos
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Re Malanos [2007] NSWSC 865
Case
[2007] NSWSC 865
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Re Malanos, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) applied under section 447A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for a modified application of section 443A(1)(a) to enable the administrator to incur obligations without personal liability. This application aimed to facilitate the company's business to continue as a going concern so as to benefit creditors. The Federal Court was required to consider the scope and interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions, as well as the broader policy considerations underpinning the administration of insolvent companies.
The court's task was to determine whether the application of section 443A(1)(a) could be modified to allow the administrator to incur obligations without personal liability, and whether such a modification would be in the best interests of creditors and consistent with the statutory objectives. The legal issues included the interpretation of sections 447A and 443A(1)(a) of the Corporations Act, the extent to which the court could modify statutory provisions in the context of corporate administration, and the balance between the interests of creditors and the potential risks associated with allowing an administrator to incur obligations without personal liability.
The court held that the application of section 443A(1)(a) could be modified to enable the administrator to incur obligations without personal liability, provided that certain safeguards were in place to protect creditors and ensure that the administration was conducted in the best interests of all stakeholders. The court emphasised the importance of preserving the going concern value of the company and maximising the return to creditors, while also considering the potential risks and costs associated with allowing the administrator to incur obligations without personal liability. The court concluded that, in the specific circumstances of the case, the modification was appropriate and in the best interests of creditors.
The final orders of the court were that the application of section 443A(1)(a) be modified to enable the administrator to incur obligations without personal liability, subject to the imposition of specific conditions and safeguards to protect creditors and ensure that the administration was conducted in the best interests of all stakeholders. The court also ordered that the administrator be granted the necessary powers to implement the modified application and that ASIC be given notice of the orders.