Deloitte duo’s Callide migraine persisting

Following their appointment in January as Special Purpose Administrators (SPAs) of IG Power Called Pty Ltd (IGPC) FTI Consulting’s John Park and Ben Campbell moved swiftly to ensure their general purpose equivalents didn’t impose burdensome obligations that might impede their work and yesterday that speed off the mark was rewarded.

In Sev.en Gamma a.s v IG Power (Callide) Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (No 2) [2024] FCA 184 Queensland Federal Court judge Berna Collier yesterday made a series of orders, largely in the form sought by the SPAs in respect of their entry into a funding deed with IGPC shareholder and creditor Sev.En Gamma.

“The orders sought by the General Purpose Administrators constituted an attempt to have some control of the Special Purpose Administrators, and to create a brake on the Special Purpose Administrators’ ability to undertake their tasks. This would likely cause delay, additional expenses, and the risk of additional appearances before the Court.” John Park and Ben Campbell, FTI Consulting.

In making the orders her honour largely rejected objections from IGPC’s general purpose liquidators (GPLs) Grant Sparks and Richard Hughes, who are no doubt still smarting from the bollocking dished in their direction by Federal Court judge Roger Derrington in Sev.en Gamma a.s. v IG Power (Callide) Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2024] FCA 30.

As GPLs the Deloitte pair are purportedly engaged in a process to try and sell IGPC.

Through their counsel they submitted to Justice Collier that they had concerns around the confidentiality of documents they would be required to furnish to the SPAs in circumstances where Park and Campbell’s funder, Sev.En Gamma, was also a prospective purchaser.

The FTI pair however resisted the alterations proposed by the Deloitte duo, arguing: “The orders sought by the General Purpose Administrators constituted an attempt to have some control of the Special Purpose Administrators, and to create a brake on the Special Purpose Administrators’ ability to undertake their tasks. This would likely cause delay, additional expenses, and the risk of additional appearances before the Court.”

Justice Collier agreed, saying she accepted the submissions for the SPAs that the administrative burden would be significantly increased by a requirement that they liaise with the GPLs as contemplated by the draft orders Sparks and Hughes had proposed.

“To the extent that the General Purpose Administrators have asked the Court to impose a limitation on the ability of the Special Purpose Administrators to disclose to Sev.en either documentation potentially subject to legal profession privilege, or documentation subject to confidentiality restrictions, I am ultimately not persuaded that that qualification should be imposed,” she said.

Yesterday’s decision is the second instance where the courts have dealt Sparkes and Hughes a blow and it may not be the last, with the SPAs contemplating public examinations that could see the Deloitte duo receiving summonses to make themselves available to tell all about why their own investigations have taken so long.