Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of New Zealand Decisions |
Last Updated: 9 April 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY
CIV-2014-409-000120 [2014] NZHC 385
UNDER Part 19 of the High Court Rules and sections 239F and 280 of the
Companies Act 1993
IN THE MATTER OF an application pursuant to section 239F of the Companies Act 1993 for an order that Stephen John Tubbs and Colin Anthony Latham Gower not be disqualified from appointment as administrators of MADAGASCAR (NO.1) 2013 LIMITED and MADAGASCAR (NO.2) 2013
LIMITED
EX PARTE STEPHEN JOHN TUBBS and COLIN ANTHONY LATHAM GOWER
Applicants
Submissions: 5 March 2014
Appearances: G Garter for Applicants
Judgment: 6 March 2014
JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE OSBORNE
as to qualification of administrators
The application
[1] Stephen Tubbs and Colin Gower apply for an order under s 239F(2) Companies Act 1993 that they may be appointed administrators of two companies. The companies are Madagascar (No 1) Limited 2013 Limited (“Madagascar (No 1)”)
and Madagascar (No 2) 2013 Limited (“Madagascar (No
2)”).
MADAGASCAR (NO.1) 2013 LTD and MADAGASCAR (NO.2) 2013 LTD EX P TUBBS [2014] NZHC 385 [6 March 2014]
[2] The sole director of Madagascar (No 1) and Madagascar (No 2)
intends to resolve today to appoint Messrs Tubb and Latham
as administrators of
the two companies.
[3] The director prefers administration because it is likely to result
in a better return for creditors as a whole than a liquidation
would.
[4] In the absence of the orders sought, Messrs Tubb and Gower would be prevented from acting as administrators of the two companies by s 280(1)(ca) of the Act and arguably by s 280(1)(cb) of the Act. This is because, within two years
immediately before the administrations would commence:
BDO Christchurch Ltd and Mr Gower provided professional
services to
the companies as investigating accountants; and
Messrs Tubbs and Gower may have had a
“continuing business
relationship” with the companies’ bank, ANZ National Bank
Ltd (ANZ).
[5] The Court has also been asked to grant leave to bring the application by
way of an originating application.
The relevant law
[6] Section 280 of the Act provides:
Qualifications of liquidators
(1) Unless the Court orders otherwise, none of the following persons may be
appointed or act as a liquidator of a company:
...
(ca) a person who has, or whose firm has, within the 2 years immediately before the commencement of the liquidation, provided professional services to the company, unless, within 20 working days before the appointment of the liquidator, the board of the company resolves that the company will, on the appointment of the liquidator, be able to pay its debts and a copy of the resolution is delivered to the Registrar for registration:
(cb) a person who has, or whose firm has, within the 2 years immediately
before the commencement of the liquidation, had a continuing
business
relationship (other than through the provision of banking or financial services)
with the company, its majority shareholder,
any of its directors, or any of its
secured creditors, unless, within 20 working days before the appointment of the
liquidator, the
board of the company resolves that the company will, on the
appointment of the liquidator, be able to pay its debts and a copy of
the
resolution is delivered to the Registrar for registration:
...
[7] Section 239F of the Act provides who may be appointed as
administrator and who may not, in these terms:
239F Who may be appointed administrator
(1) A natural person who is not disqualified under subsection (2) may be
appointed an administrator of a company.
(2) Unless the Court orders otherwise, a person is disqualified from
appointment as an administrator if that person—
(a) is disqualified under section 280(1) from being appointed or acting as a
liquidator of the company; or
(b) is prohibited from being an administrator by an order made under section
239ADV.
[8] I respectfully adopt as helpful guidance in relation to these
applications the judgment of Associate Judge Abbott in Icon Digital
Entertainment Ltd v Westpac New Zealand Ltd.1
[9] In Icon Digital, the administrators were appointed despite potential disqualifications under s 280 of the Act. Those resulted from their past provision of professional services to the company being placed in administration and arguably from a continuing business relationship with one of the company’s major secured creditors. Associate Judge Abbott accepted2 that the applicants’ knowledge of the company, built up through their role as investigating accountants, would assist them
to carry out the administration more quickly and
efficiently.
1 Icon Digital Entertainment Ltd v Westpac New Zealand Ltd HC Auckland CIV-2007-404-
007124, 20 November 2007.
2 At [19].
[10] For the applicants in this case, Mr Carter has referred me to Icon
Digital and to other decisions in similar
situations.3
[11] As Mr Carter submitted, there are key principles which emerge from those
cases as follows:
(a) It is appropriate to make an application under s 280 of the Act as
an originating application under Part 19 High Court Rules;
(b) An important issue is whether there is a risk that the proposed
administrators’ independence and ability to carry out
their task
professionally and effectively might be compromised in the particular
circumstances;
(c) Without notice applications will be permitted where the interests
of justice require urgency and the creditors’ interests
can fairly be
protected in other ways, having regard also to the undue delay or prejudice to
applicants as potential administrators;
(d) Where an order is made on a without notice basis, the Court might
appropriately direct the order and application be served
on any creditors and
the Court might properly reserve leave to creditors to apply to vary or set
aside the orders made within a specified
period;
(e) The solicitor/client costs of the proposed administrators in
respect of an application are usually ordered to be an expense
in the
administration.
The nature of voluntary administration
[12] The nature of voluntary administration is
relevant.
3 Reference was made in addition to Icon Digital to Re Rapson Holdings Limited HC Auckland,
26 April 2010, (Associate Judge Abbot), CIV-2010-404-2319; Re Joeleen Enterprises Limited HC New Plymouth CIV-2008-443-485, 3 October 2008 (Associate Judge Abbott), Re Huntleigh Downs Limited HC Wellington CIV-2009-485-1498, 11 August 2009, (Associate Judge Gendall) and Re Southbury Insurance Limited [2012] NZHC 1316.
[13] The objects of the voluntary administration regime contained in part
15A of the Act are identified by s 239A as being –
... to provide for the business, property, and affairs of an
insolvent company, or a company that may in the future become
insolvent, to be
administered in a way that—
(a) maximises the chances of the company, or as much as possible of
its business, continuing in existence; or
(b) if it is not possible for the company or its business to continue
in existence, results in a better return for the company's
creditors and
shareholders than would result from an immediate liquidation of the
company.
[14] Where a company is put into administration, the administrator puts a
restructuring proposal to all creditors who vote on it
at the watershed meeting
under sub-part 8 of Part 15A of the Act. The administrator is obliged to
achieve the best result for
creditors as a whole (as contrasted to a
receiver who is primarily responsible to recover the secured
creditor’s
funds (whilst having regard to the interests of other
creditors and of the company).
[15] Where an administrator is appointed, the combined effect of the
provisions of the Act is to ensure that the people
who are appointed
as administrators have sufficient independence, confidence and integrity to
carry out their role without
causing risk to creditors or third
parties.
Prior involvement of Mr Tubbs and Mr Gower
[16] Mr Gower has given evidence as to the prior involvement of Mr Tubbs
and himself.
[17] Mr Gower is a director of BDO Christchurch Ltd and a partner of BDO Christchurch. The firm is a full service professional advisory firm specialising in accountancy, corporate advisory, restructuring and insolvency services. Mr Gower has more than 20 years experience in liquidations, administrations and related services.
[18] Mr Tubbs holds the same positions. He has similar experience. Mr
Tubbs is in addition a fellow of the New Zealand Institute
of Chartered
Accountants.
[19] Both Mr Gower and Mr Tubbs are well known to this Court inasmuch as
they are frequently appointed by the Court as liquidators.
[20] Madagascar (No 1) and Madagascar (No 2) have a sole director in Adam
Carville. The two companies specialised in international
cargo. The
businesses were sold in May 2013 with settlement on 1 August 2013.
[21] In the meantime, in July 2013, Messrs Tubbs and Gower were (at the
request of ANZ) engaged by the Companies as investigating
accountants. Mr Gower
had the lead role. The engagement was to undertake a financial review of the
companies and to monitor the
sale process.
[22] Since the sale of the businesses, the two companies have not traded
and do not have employees. The debt to ANZ as the first
ranking secured
creditor has been repaid. Messrs Gower and Tubbs understand the two companies
to have no assets remaining other
than pre-sale book debts.
[23] Mr Gower has deposed as to the extent of known creditors,
including contingent creditors, of the two companies.
[24] The director, Mr Carville, has signalled to Messrs Gower
and Tubbs a concern that the companies may become insolvent.
Hence his
intention to resolve to appoint administrators. The intention is to seek a
better return for creditors than would result
from a liquidation.
[25] Mr Gower discloses that he and Mr Tubbs, in addition to the specific relationship with the companies as investigating accountants, have arguably had a continuing business relationship with ANZ (the companies’ banker) in that ANZ has in that period appointed Messrs Gower and Tubbs to numerous roles such as receivers, liquidators and investigating accountants.
Discussion
[26] The situation is directly parallel to that of the proposed (and
approved) administrators in Icon Digital.4 I apply that
decision. In both cases, there was a prior appointment (at the behest of a
bank) to investigate a situation but with
an emphasis upon independent
investigation. In both cases there was also the prior relationship to the
bank in question through
which the administrators had been appointed to
various professional roles.
[27] I am satisfied that, as in Icon Digital, nothing in those
circumstances compromises the independence of Messrs Tubbs and Gower or their
ability to carry out their role of
administrators professionally and
effectively. The prior involvement of the proposed administrators is in fact
likely to enable
the administration to take place more quickly and efficiently
than otherwise.
Orders
[28] I order:
(a) This application may be made by way of originating
application;
(b) Notwithstanding ss 239F and 280(1)(ca) and (cb) Companies
Act
1993 (the Act) Stephen John Tubbs and Colin Anthony Latham Gower may be
appointed as administrators of Madagascar (No 1) 2013 Ltd
(Madagascar (No 1))
and Madagascar (No 2) 2013 Ltd (Madagascar (No 2));
(c) The application and a copy of this order shall be served on all creditors notified of the first meeting of creditors pursuant to s
239AO(1)(a) of the Act, at the same time and in the same manner as notice under s 239AO is given by the administrators to those
creditors;
4 Icon Digital Entertainment Ltd v Westpac New Zealand Ltd, above at [1].
(d) Leave is reserved to any creditor of Madagascar (No 1) and/or
Madagascar (No 2) to apply to the Court within 10 working days
of service of the
order to set aside the appointment of Stephen John Tubbs and Colin Anthony
Latham Gower as administrators;
(e) The applicants’ reasonable solicitor/client costs of this
application are an expense incurred by the applicants in
carrying out their
duties as administrators.
Associate Judge Osborne
Solicitors:
Chapman Tripp, Christchurch
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2014/385.html