Australian Securities and Investments Commission, In the Matter of Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd (ACN 099 071 968) v Carey (No 4) [2006] FCA 644

Australian Securities and Investments Commission, In the Matter of Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd (ACN 099 071 968) v Carey (No 4) [2006] FCA 644

The Court found, based on affidavit evidence and the five transactions outlined by ASIC, that it was necessary and desirable to appoint receivers to all property of Keypoint Developments Pty Ltd, in order to protect the interests of creditors, particularly those of Westpoint Corporation and Richstar. The conduct...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Plaintiff: Australian Securities and Investments Commission; First Defendant: Norman Phillip Carey; Second Defendant: Graeme John Rundle; Third Defendant: Cedric Richard Palmer Beck; Fourth Defendant: John Norman Dixon; Fifth Defendant: Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd (ACN 099 071 968); Sixth Defendant: Westpoint Realty Pty Ltd (ACN 050 218 954); Seventh Defendant: Bowesco Pty Ltd (ACN 008 915 357); Eighth Defendant: Redchime Pty Ltd (ACN 117 947 805); Ninth Defendant: Keypoint Developments Pty Ltd (ACN 115 507 232)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Corporations/interlocutory Application for Appointment of Receivers / Interlocutory Application, Orders on Appointment of Receivers
Outcome
Receivers appointed to all property of Keypoint Developments Pty Ltd. Question as to costs of receivers reserved. Plaintiff awarded costs of the interlocutory process.
Legal Topics
Receivership, Interlocutory Relief, Asset Preservation, Corporate Governance
Corporations Law Receivership Interlocutory Relief Asset Preservation Corporate Governance

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Plaintiff

Norman Phillip Carey

First Defendant

Graeme John Rundle

Second Defendant

Cedric Richard Palmer Beck

Third Defendant

John Norman Dixon

Fourth Defendant

Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd (ACN 099 071 968)

Fifth Defendant

Westpoint Realty Pty Ltd (ACN 050 218 954)

Sixth Defendant

Bowesco Pty Ltd (ACN 008 915 357)

Seventh Defendant

Redchime Pty Ltd (ACN 117 947 805)

Eighth Defendant

Keypoint Developments Pty Ltd (ACN 115 507 232)

Ninth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Corporations/interlocutory Application for Appointment of Receivers / Interlocutory Application, Orders on Appointment of Receivers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is necessary and desirable to appoint receivers to Keypoint Developments Pty Ltd's property under s 1323 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found, based on affidavit evidence and the five transactions outlined by ASIC, that it was necessary and desirable to appoint receivers to all property of Keypoint Developments Pty Ltd, in order to protect the interests of creditors, particularly those of Westpoint Corporation and Richstar. The conduct demonstrated a consistent misuse of corporate vehicles to transfer assets that should be available to creditors.

Court Disposition

Receivers appointed to all property of Keypoint Developments Pty Ltd. Question as to costs of receivers reserved. Plaintiff awarded costs of the interlocutory process.

Orders

  • Until 20 October 2006 or further order, Oren Zohar, Brian McMaster and Mark Korda appointed jointly and severally as receivers and managers to all property of Keypoint Developments Pty Ltd.
  • Receivers are granted powers for identification, preservation, and securing of Keypoint's property, subject to safekeeping provisions; powers do not extend to sale, letting, or encumbrance without leave or consent.