Hayes, in the matter of Henry Walker Eltin Group Limited (subject to deed of company arrangement) (No 2) [2014] FCA 30

Hayes, in the matter of Henry Walker Eltin Group Limited (subject to deed of company arrangement) (No 2) [2014] FCA 30

Because the former creditors had no interest in the remaining funds, there was no committee of creditors or inspection, and no HWE shareholder held at least 10% of the issued capital, r 9.2(2) did not provide a useful procedure for the intended remuneration application. Notice to HWE's directors and to the 10 largest shareholders, representing 23.23% of HWE's issued capital, would provide a sufficient pool from which any likely objector could be found.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Directions Concerning Deed Administrators' Remuneration / Determined on the Papers Before Intended Application for Approval of Remuneration
Outcome
Directions made under r 1.8 of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth) in lieu of r 9.2(2).
Legal Topics
['deed of Company Arrangement' "deed Administrators' Remuneration" 'application for Directions' 'notice Requirements']
['corporations' 'insolvency'] ['deed of Company Arrangement' "deed Administrators' Remuneration" 'application for Directions' 'notice Requirements']

Case Brief

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Directions Concerning Deed Administrators' Remuneration / Determined on the Papers Before Intended Application for Approval of Remuneration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether r 9.2(2) of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth) adequately provided the procedure for notice of the deed administrators' intended remuneration application under s 449E(1A) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)." 'Whether notice should be given to former creditors, shareholders, and directors, and to which shareholders.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the former creditors had no interest in the remaining funds, there was no committee of creditors or inspection, and no HWE shareholder held at least 10% of the issued capital, r 9.2(2) did not provide a useful procedure for the intended remuneration application. Notice to HWE's directors and to the 10 largest shareholders, representing 23.23% of HWE's issued capital, would provide a sufficient pool from which any likely objector could be found.

Court Disposition

Directions made under r 1.8 of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth) in lieu of r 9.2(2).

Orders

  • ["Pursuant to r 1.8 of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth), and in lieu of r 9.2(2), at least 21 days before filing any interlocutory process seeking an order for remuneration under s 449E(1A) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the first, second and third plaintiffs must serve a notice substantially...