16 Mar 2010
MARSH V COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND BRANCH (ABN 123 123 124) HC AK CIV2009-404-3336
- Citation
- openlaw-894922dd_34b4_4795_bcb5_b54d929a8fa7.pdf
- Court
- High Court
Although the proposals met procedural voting requirements and were not unreasonable under s333(3)(b), the Court refused approval under s333(3)(c) because the insolvents' conduct (frustration of security realisation), lack of candour, failure to explain massive losses and the proposals' structure excluding income from secured‑creditor dealings from distributable funds created a real public‑interest risk they would evade bankruptcy consequences and capture substantial benefits to the detriment of creditors and the integrity of the insolvency regime.