Administrators allowed to sell company assets despite unusual sale process
In Goyal, in the matter of Cape Technologies Pty Ltd (administrators appointed) [2021] FCA 1654, the Federal Court used its discretion to permit the sale of a business in somewhat unique circumstances. The justification was that the sale maximised the chances of the business continuing in existence and resulted in a better return to creditors than an immediate winding up of the company. Whilst that justification is consistent with the object of voluntary administrations as set out in section 435A of the Corporations Act 2001, the sale process remains unusual.
Background
Cape Technology Pty Ltd (the Company) was established to develop a new financial operating system for businesses. The Company’s assets included tangible assets (comprising of cash) and intangible assets (comprising of work-in-progress associated with the development of the financial operating system).
The directors appointed administrators on 18 October 2021 and these administrators subsequently conducted a valuation of the Company. The evidence was that in the absence of any sources of revenue or funding, the administrators had insufficient funds to meet the ongoing operational costs of the Company. The administrators concluded that unless the business assets were sold, there would be no funds available for distribution to creditors, including employees, on a liquidation of the Company.
Sale of Business
Faced with these difficult circumstances, the administrators began conducting a sale process on a truncated timeline due to the Company’s poor financial situation. They began entering negotiations with two groups of directors and shareholders of the Company. One of these groups, BidCo made an offer that had to be signed before 12 noon on 1 November 2021. The other director had expressed interest, but facing time pressures, the administrators signed a head of agreement with BidCo to meet the deadline.
The first meeting of creditors was held on 4 November 2021 and At this meeting, the administrators informed the creditors inter alia:
- given financial constraints, the administrators were not able to conduct a traditional sale process;
- the directors and shareholders were given the opportunity to purchase the business of the Company;
- a bid had been accepted;
- they were being financially supported by the successful bidder while the sale process was underway;
- a court application would be necessary because of the unique circumstances of the sale.
The administrators gave creditors, shareholders and directors notice of the application and the orders being sought. There was no opposition.
Court’s Consideration
The decision notes that Section 90-15(3)(a) of the Insolvency Practice Schedule confers a broad power on the Court to make “an order determining any question arising in the external administration of the company”. The Court noted that the power in S90-15(3)(a) was “not appropriately exercised where the Court is being asked to do no more than sanction the making and implementation of a business or commercial decision in respect of which no particular legal issue is raised or in respect of which there is no potential to bring into question the propriety or reasonableness of the decision”.
The Court also noted that “courts have been prepared to sanction, by direction (such as now sought), an administrator’s exercise of that power where there is the potential for issues of “propriety or reasonableness” to be raised with respect to the making of the decision”.
The administrators application to the court was made because the administrators were concerned about the sale occurring in circumstances where:
- they had not publicly advertised the assets for sale;
- The period in which the assets had been offered for sale was limited;
- BidCo was a company owned and controlled by two directors of the company;
- The company’s creditors had not had the opportunity to vote on the sale; and
- The sale was not proposed as part of a deed of company arrangement.
The administrators were concerned that the circumstances could raise issues about the reasonableness and proprietary of that sale, particularly when there were some matters in dispute with the other director who also bid for the assets.
In addressing the circumstances of the sale, the administrators submitted that:
- due to the limited financial resources of the Company, there was financial ability for the Company to fund a traditional marketing campaign.
- while they would have preferred to negotiate with arms-length purchasers, they decided it was better to sell to someone who would appreciate and understand the business;
- they relied on section 435A of the Corporations Act which stated that an insolvent company’s affairs should be administered in a way that maximises the chances of the company continuing in existence.
The court agreed that, in the difficult circumstances, the administrators had taken justifiable and reasonable action to maximise the return to creditors and employees. The Court made orders approving the sale of business assets to BidCo; albeit being a related party.
Take outs
This case highlights a number of points, particulars for external administrators and their advisers:
- the Court will not usually provide judicial advice or direction where an administrator is making or implementing a commercial decision;
- the Court may exercise its discretion in appropriate circumstances, particularly where there is the potential for issues of “propriety or reasonableness” to be raised with respect to the making of the decision;
- the onus will be on the administrator to prove that they have taken all reasonable and justified steps in conducting a sale or process in the circumstances.
The Court also made an order restricting access to certain of the material files as commercially confidential until completion of the sale to prevent prejudice.
