VAs win six more months as receivers suppress

Thanks to a judge’s preparedness to make suppression orders iNO can’t say as much as we reckon should be said about yesterday’s application by the administrators of failed cosmetics group BWX Pty Limited for an extension of the period in which to convene the second meeting of creditors.

The application was the second made by FTI Consulting’s Joe Hansell, Kelly-Anne Trenfield and Kate Warwick since they were appointed on April the third this year, four months after newly installed BWX chairman and independent director Steve Fisher told shareholders that he and the management team were restructuring the finances so as to allow the group to overcome liquidity constraints, a process he anticipated “will be completed by the end of March 2023”.

It really is time artificial intelligence was let loose on chairman’s speeches.

Hot on the heels of the FTI trio’s appointments came KPMG’s Gayle Dickerson, the two Jims Dampney and Stewart and David Hardy, appointed by secured lender CBA as receiver/managers on April 4.

By the date of the first meeting on April 17 the administrators were already telling creditors that they’d be making an application for an extension of between three and six months of the convening period at the request of the receivers.

That application came before Federal Court judge Tim McEvoy in May and he granted a six month extension.

Yesterday the administrators’ barrister Chris Hibbard took the judge through the material in support of an extension for a further six months to May 13, 2024.

Much of it had been redacted and the judge was in possession of those documents and their unredacted equivalents, allowing him to follow submissions that withheld specific information like the identity of prospective buyers for the BWX business and the progress of the sale process.

Invariably though, the judge asked some questions and despite Hibbard’s care in ensuring nothing was revealed, those questions and Hibbard’s responses were seemingly enough to summon forth the demons of paranoia in Hibbard’s instructors.

Towards the end of the application Hibbard informed the court that he would seek suppression orders over information aired based on iNO’s presence and the judge indicated acquiescence.

Several hours later he ordered that there is to be “no disclosure, by publication or otherwise, of:
a. information that relates to the sales process undertaken by Gayle Dickerson, James Stewart, James Dampney and David Hardy (Receivers) in their capacity as receivers of the second, third and sixth to fourteenth plaintiffs in respect of the business and other assets of those companies (Sales Processes);
and;
b. information that identifies or describes, or tends to identify or describe, any person involved in the Sales Processes (other than the Receivers).”

So in essence the receivers – who are pulling the administrators’ strings – have headed off an opportunity for creditors to be further informed about a sale campaign that now requires a year to complete, assuming of course Hansell, Trenfield and Warwick aren’t forced to return to court seeking even more time because the receivers still can’t get a deal made.

And that of course depends on matters about which iNO is prohibited from reporting.