RE PWL - ACN 084 252 488 LTD; EX PARTE PWL LTD (FORMERLY PALANDRI WINES LTD) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) [No 2] [2008] WASC 232
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2008] WASC 232 | |
| 20/10/2008 | |||
| Case No: | COR:116/2008 | 22 SEPTEMBER 2008 | |
| Coram: | EM HEENAN J | 22/09/08 | |
| 28 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Orders for windingup of six schemes | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | PWL LTD (FORMERLY PALANDRI WINES LTD) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 084 252 488) |
Catchwords: | Originating summons Corporations Voluntary administration Managed investment schemes Windingup |
Legislation: | Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth) Trustees Act 1962 (WA) |
Case References: | ASIC v Chase Capital Management Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 27; (2001) 36 ACSR 778 ASIC v Knightsbridge Managed Funds Ltd [2001] WASC 339 Australian Softwood Forests Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (NSW); Ex rel CAC (1981) 148 CLR 121 Bernhardt v Beau Rivage Pty Ltd (1989) 15 ACLR 160 Cumulus Wines Pty Ltd v Huntley Management Ltd [2004] NSWSC 609; (2004) 50 ACSR 58 Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd [1973] AC 360 Kay v ASIC [2002] WASCA 299 Re Co-operative Development Funds of Australia Ltd (No 3) (1978) 3 ACLR 437 Re Orchard Aginvest Ltd (as responsible entity for the Primary Agribusiness Fund) [2008] QSC 002 Re Pacific Fisheries Ltd (1909) 26 WN (NSW) 127 Re Straw Products Pty Ltd [1942] VLR 222 Re Tivoli Freeholds Ltd [1972] VR 445 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : RE PWL - ACN 084 252 488 LTD; EX PARTE PWL LTD (FORMERLY PALANDRI WINES LTD) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) [No 2] [2008] WASC 232 CORAM : EM HEENAN J HEARD : 22 SEPTEMBER 2008 DELIVERED : 22 SEPTEMBER 2008 PUBLISHED : 20 OCTOBER 2008 FILE NO/S : COR 116 of 2008 MATTER : PWL - ACN 084 252 488 LTD (FORMERLY PALANDRI WINES LIMITED) ACN 084 252 488 (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) AS RESPONSIBLE ENTITY OF MARGARET RIVER WINE BUSINESS ARSN 086 241 198, MARGARET RIVER WINE BUSINESS TRUST ARSN 119 602 505, PALANDRI AMERICA WINE BUSINESS ARSN 098 544 908, PALANDRI WINEGRAPE PROJECT 2005/2006 ARSN 114 193 234, PALANDRI GLOBAL SUPPLY CHALLENGE 2007 - 2008 ARSN 124 150 616 AND PALANDRI AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY TRUST ARSN 114 192 933 EX PARTE
PWL LTD (FORMERLY PALANDRI WINES LTD) (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) (ACN 084 252 488)
Plaintiff
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Originating summons - Corporations - Voluntary administration - Managed investment schemes - Windingup
Legislation:
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth)
Trustees Act 1962 (WA)
Result:
Orders for windingup of six schemes
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr R J Price
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : McKenzie Moncrieff Lawyers
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
ASIC v Chase Capital Management Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 27; (2001) 36 ACSR 778
ASIC v Knightsbridge Managed Funds Ltd [2001] WASC 339
Australian Softwood Forests Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (NSW); Ex rel CAC (1981) 148 CLR 121
Bernhardt v Beau Rivage Pty Ltd (1989) 15 ACLR 160
Cumulus Wines Pty Ltd v Huntley…
Continue reading Re PWL Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Re PWL Ltd [2008] WASC 232
- Case
- [2008] WASC 232
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, sought orders to wind up six managed investment schemes that were previously operated by PWL Ltd, which had entered voluntary administration. The Federal Court considered the application under section 461A of the Corporations Act 2001. The primary concern was whether the schemes met the criteria for winding up, considering the potential risks to investors and the need to protect their interests.
The court examined the nature and operations of the schemes, the financial health of PWL Ltd, and the implications for the investors. It was necessary to determine whether the schemes had become or were likely to become insolvent, whether the ongoing operation of the schemes would be detrimental to investors, and if winding up the schemes was in the best interests of the investors. The court also considered whether there were any other suitable remedies available before resorting to winding up.
The court found that the schemes had become or were likely to become insolvent and that their continued operation posed significant risks to the investors. The court concluded that winding up the schemes was the most appropriate course of action to protect the investors' interests. The court noted that the schemes had been operating for an extended period without sufficient returns and that the financial position of PWL Ltd was precarious. The court emphasised the importance of safeguarding investor interests and ensuring that the schemes were managed in a manner that prioritised their welfare.
Accordingly, the court made orders for the winding up of the six managed investment schemes operated by PWL Ltd. The orders directed the liquidators to take control of the schemes' assets and liabilities and to manage the winding-up process in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Corporations Act. The court also ordered that the liquidators be given priority over other creditors in the distribution of the schemes' assets. The decision underscored the importance of protecting investors in managed investment schemes and the court's willingness to intervene where necessary to safeguard their interests.
The court examined the nature and operations of the schemes, the financial health of PWL Ltd, and the implications for the investors. It was necessary to determine whether the schemes had become or were likely to become insolvent, whether the ongoing operation of the schemes would be detrimental to investors, and if winding up the schemes was in the best interests of the investors. The court also considered whether there were any other suitable remedies available before resorting to winding up.
The court found that the schemes had become or were likely to become insolvent and that their continued operation posed significant risks to the investors. The court concluded that winding up the schemes was the most appropriate course of action to protect the investors' interests. The court noted that the schemes had been operating for an extended period without sufficient returns and that the financial position of PWL Ltd was precarious. The court emphasised the importance of safeguarding investor interests and ensuring that the schemes were managed in a manner that prioritised their welfare.
Accordingly, the court made orders for the winding up of the six managed investment schemes operated by PWL Ltd. The orders directed the liquidators to take control of the schemes' assets and liabilities and to manage the winding-up process in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Corporations Act. The court also ordered that the liquidators be given priority over other creditors in the distribution of the schemes' assets. The decision underscored the importance of protecting investors in managed investment schemes and the court's willingness to intervene where necessary to safeguard their interests.
Orders
Orders of the court
Orders for winding?up of six schemes
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.