It’s a familiar scenario. A lone non-related creditor with a big debt. A pair of related parties with nominal claims. And a tricky resolution for the liquidator in the middle.
“We have to know what the allegation is to understand what he’s supposed to have done wrong. The vote to remove him failed. On what basis is the plaintiff alleging that he should be removed? There seems to be some oblique criticism that doesn’t seem to be based on fact.” Roger Marshall SC.
It’s also a scenario guaranteed to leave someone unhappy and in the aftermath of the June 17 meeting of creditors of Technology Solutions Experts Pty Ltd (TSE), Jones Partners Daniel Soire has earned the ire of unrelated creditor Print Management Facilities Australia Pty Ltd (PMFA) to the extent that it has commenced proceedings in the Federal Court to have him removed as TSE’s liquidator.
Soire had been forced to convene the meeting by PMFA, which with a claim of more than $600,000 has the overwhelming majority of claims by value.
PMFA’s not happy that Soire’s referrer Anthony Maklouf is also the husband of TSE’s sole director and shareholder, Ms Roula Haidar and it petitioned for Soire to convene the meeting to vote on a resolution to remove him and install Rodgers Reidy Brisbane director Kaily Chau.
But with only the meeting petitioner voting in favour and two creditors, albeit with small debts opposed, it was open to Soire to use his casting vote as chair to break the deadlock.
Equally, it was open to him to do nothing, thereby ensuring the resolution failed. Which is exactly what Soire did.
Incensed PMFA commenced replacement proceedings. Appearing at the first case management hearing yesterday for PMFA was Brisbane barrister Rhett Kipps, who told the court that he would rely on case law to show that it’s inappropriate for a meeting chair to “to allow the majority in number to carry the day when their value is negligible”.
Roger Marshall SC for Soire wanted the matter to proceed by pleadings because “Mr Soire’s reputation seems to be at issue and we don’t know why”.
“We have to know what the allegation is to understand what he’s supposed to have done wrong,” Marshall told the court.
“The vote to remove him failed. On what basis is the plaintiff alleging that he should be removed? There seems to be some oblique criticism that doesn’t seem to be based on fact.”
Federal Court National Judicial Registrar Peter Schmidt wasn’t persuaded that the matter should proceed by way of pleadings but has yet to make orders in respect of a timetable for bringing the matter on for hearing.
Further reading:
Be the first to comment on "The perils of favouring majority in number"