Earlier this month Rein J of the NSW Supreme Court refused to grant an interlocutory injunction sought in proceedings brought under s 1321 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) appealing from the decision of the liquidator of a company to sell certain assets of the company by tender – see In the matter of SCW Pty Ltd  NSWSC 578.
The company had been placed in liquidation not because of insolvency, but because of a deadlock between the two directors, Ms Cantarella and Mr Schirato. SCW was the holding company of a group controlled by Ms Canterella and Mr Schirato, which included a company Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd, the operator of a successful business as a fresh foods wholesaler specialising in products which included coffee under the Vittoria brand. The assets of SCW included significant real estate.
The liquidator, Jamieson Louttit of Jamieson Louttit & Associates, had been in the process of selling the assets of SCW and the liquidation was close to completion. In 2011 Mr Schirato indicated his interest in purchasing SCW’s rights against Ms Cantarella in relation to her role as a director. Mr Schirato provided the liquidator with an opinion by well-known Sydney silk Robert Newlinds SC. Mr Schirato indicated he, and a corporate entity, would be willing to pay $100,000 for the potential rights of SCW against Ms Cantarella Mr Newlinds discussed in his opinion.
The liquidator considered Mr Schirato’s proposal, and the opinion. He also had the allegations investigated, and obtained an advice from his own solicitors Piper Alderman. On these bases, he formed the view that contrary to Mr Schirato’s contention, SCW had no viable causes of action against Ms Cantarella. Prudently, however, he sought judicial direction under s 479(3) of the Act as to whether he would be justified in not treating with Mr Schirato in connection with the claimed causes of action. Both directors were represented at that hearing before Brereton J. In his decision, his Honour Brereton J held that the liquidator would not be justified in refusing to treat with Mr Schirato. That judgment may be read here, and see - for details of the potential causes of action that Mr Schirato was interested in pursuing.
Subsequently, the liquidator established a process whereby those parties who might have an interest in paying for an assignment to themselves of SCW’s causes of action against any of the corporate officers of SCW would be given an opportunity to tender. Those officers were the two directors Ms Cantarella and Mr Schirato, Ms Wannan (an alternate director) and Mr Jones (the company secretary).
Tenders were invited by a document sent out on 12 April 2013, which included certain aspects –
(1) A tender must not be less than $100K,
(2) The liquidator would accept the highest offer received if the terms were complied with, and
(3) The liquidator would seek judicial approval for the execution of the deed of assignment .
The grounds upon which the applicants, Ms Cantarella and a corporate entity, challenged the decision of the liquidator to take this step included –
1. The use of a tender process was unfair, as it gave the tenderers no opportunity to better the offer made by another tenderer;
2. The description of the claims against “any past or present officer of the company other than the liquidator” or any other person connected in any way to any act or omission of any past or present officers of the company was too broad. This would impede a tenderer from offering as much as they might otherwise.
3. The terms of the indemnity the liquidator sought in the proposed deed of assignment was too broad, which would also discourage a tenderer from making its highest bid.
4. The tenderers were to provide cheques, to be held in the account of Piper Alderman, until the Court approves the execution of a deed of assignment. This, it was argued, exposed the potential tenderer to the risk that his her or its money would not be returned.
Rein J found it notable that the applicants did not complain about the range of persons to whom the tender letter was sent; it was sent only to the former officers of the company SCW.
His Honour notes the key principles as advanced by the applicants, at  –
(1) The fundamental duty of a liquidator is to obtain the highest possible price for the company’s assets sold by him or her;
(2) Where an appeal under s 1321(1)(d) against a discretionary decision of a liquidator is brought, the Court will reverse the liquidator’s decision “only when it is satisfied he was acting unreasonably or in bad faith”: Re Jay-O-Bees Py Ltd (in liq)  NSWSC 818; (2004) 50 ACSR 565 at ; McGrath v Sturesteps  NSWCA 315; (2011) 81 NSWLR 690, at .
There was no allegation of bad faith, but the applicants asserted that the liquidator was acting unreasonably, for the four reasons outlined above. Rein J took the view that since no point was taken that there was any unreasonableness in sending the invitation to tender only to former officers of the company, the liquidator’s decision to offer Ms Cantarella the opportunity to purchase the rights and thus stymie the claims that it appeared Mr Schirato sought to bring against her seemed fair and reasonable, as did the various aspects of the tender process challenged.
Rein J accepted that a tender process means that each tenderer does not know what the others may have bid, and thus has no opportunity to better other bids. But that is the process. Sale by tender is a legitimate method of selling property and did not appear to involve an unreasonable commercial decision. Whether it was likely to yield a higher or lesser figure than some other process, such as a round table auction, was a matter upon which the liquidator was required to exercise a commercial judgment, and he had done so. His Honour noted that a tender process had the additional advantage of removing the liquidator of involvement in a bidding process involving negotiations, which could be difficult to control.
Rein J held there was no discernible prejudice to the applicants in permitting the tender process to proceed, and he refused the injunctive relief sought.
One can see that the tender process in these circumstances put Ms Cantarella in an invidious, and expensive, position. It is indeed possible that any claims against her could, were they to be pursued, prove to be of insufficient merit. Yet even so, at this point in time, she faced a costly and unpalatable choice.
An interesting decision indeed.
Interesting case here. I wonder if this tender resulted in the choice of action being purchased by those against whom it was to be against. $100k may be a cheaper way to ensure this case was not run rather than funding a defence and potentially losing