19 Mar 2013
The Court approved the proposal because the statutory requirements were complied with, the proposal was accepted by the required majority of creditors, it provides for full payment of preferential creditors and trustee fees and a 36% dividend to non‑preferential creditors which is more than likely in bankruptcy given minimal assets, and it is expedient to approve.
5 Mar 2013
The Court found that the procedural requirements of Part 5 Sub‑Part 2 were satisfied, the amended proposal produced a reasonable and tangible benefit to the general body of creditors (immediate and scheduled payments representing nearly 9% of assessed indebtedness with potential additional proceeds from sale), and it was expedient to approve the proposal; accordingly the Court approved the proposal without awarding costs.
11 Dec 2012
The court approved the Part 5 creditors' proposal because procedural requirements were met, a sufficient majority of creditors in number and value accepted it, the proposal (a one‑off $100,000 underwritten payment) provided a greater and more certain return to creditors than bankruptcy would, there was no evidence of debtor misconduct warranting Official Assignee scrutiny, and any understatement of total indebtedness was a formal error correctable under s333(6) that did not alter the substance of the proposal.
26 Nov 2012
The court approved the creditors' proposal because the statutory procedures were complied with, the required majority of known creditors (six of seven holding 80.99% of indebtedness) voted in favour, and the terms—progressive payments over five years clearing approximately 81% of the total debt—were reasonable and beneficial to the general body of creditors, making it expedient to approve the proposal.
26 Sept 2011
The court refused approval because the proposal offered an essentially de minimis recovery to creditors and therefore was not reasonable nor calculated to benefit the general body of creditors within the meaning of s333(3)(b); additionally public interest and the desirability of Official Assignee scrutiny of large scale losses supported refusal.