The Supreme Court of Queensland has ruled this week on an issue of some uncertainty in the interpretation of the Corporations Act and Corporations Regulations as they apply to proof of debts.
This matter concerns the liquidation of the Equititrust Limited (the “Company”). The combatants were the court appointed receiver of a fund called the Equititrust Income Fund and the liquidators of the Company.
Prior to its liquidation, the Company was under administration. At a second meeting of its creditors, which was held on 20 April 2012, it was resolved that the Company be wound up. For the purposes of that meeting, the applicant provided a document to the respondents, as the administrators, which claimed that the Company was indebted to the Fund in an amount of $537,656.57 (“the Document”).
The parties are in dispute as to the Document’s effect, if any, after the meeting of creditors for which it was provided. The respondents as liquidators have treated it as a formal proof of debt and they have rejected it. The applicant says that the Document had no effect after the creditors‟ meeting of April 2012. His case is that the Company is indebted to the Fund, but for substantially more than the amount which was claimed in the Document. He wishes to lodge a proof of debt for that higher claim. He has purported to withdraw the Document, if it did have some effect after the meeting of April 2012. The respondents say that he could do so only with their consent, which they have refused to provide.
The parties agreed that certain questions would be answered by the Justice hearing the matter in advance of other issues being dealt with. The principal issue underlying those questions was:
“What is the relevance, or otherwise, of a formal proof lodged at an administrator’s meeting if and when the company into liquidation?”
This is not a question that has been considered at any length by the Courts (save for some obiter commentary by Justice McMeekin in Re: Castleplex Pty Ltd (in liq)  QCA 59 at ) so Justice McMurdo’s task was to come up with a solution to this problem based on first principals.
Justice McMurdo answered the question noted above in the following way:
· There is no provision of the Corporations Act or Corporations Regulations which is in terms that a proof of debt lodged at an administrators meeting will constitute a proof of debt as if it had been lodged with a liquidator, in the event that the company is placed in liquidation.
· There is a different between a proof of debt which is relevant to an administrator and in a liquidation being:
o In an administration the relevant date for the adjudication of a proof of debt is the date of the second meeting of creditors; and
o In a liquidation the relevant date is the day on which the winding up is taken to have begun and, additionally, a proof of debt for a liquidation must include a statement that the company was not only indebted to the creditor as at the relevant date, but remained indebted as at the date of the proof of debt.
· These factors considered together meant, in the view of McMurdo J, that a proof of debt for voting purposes at a second meeting of creditors in a voluntary administration could not comply with the Corporations Regulations as they apply to proofs of debt in liquidations because it would address the indebtedness of the creditor at different dates.
· Some other problems also arose in McMurdo J’s view:
o Regulation 5.6.48 permits a liquidator to fix a day by which creditors whose debts or claims have not been admitted are to formally prove their debts or claims. If a formal proof lodged for voting at an administrator’s meeting is to be treated as a formal proof in the liquidation, the operation of reg 5.6.48 would be unclear where the debt or claim has not been admitted by the liquidator.
o Regulation 5.6.49 provides that a formal proof of debt is to be delivered or sent to the liquidator. A proof lodged with the administrator, as the chairperson of a meeting under s 439A, would not satisfy reg 5.6.49 unless subsequently the document was delivered or sent by the creditor to the liquidator.
Justice McMurdo answered the key question noted above as follows (at paragaraph 38 of the judgment):
In the present case, the creditor has not asked the liquidator to treat the document as a formal proof of debt in the liquidation. In my view, the document was not a formal proof of debt for the purposes of the liquidation. If reg 5.6.23 does provide for the lodgement of a formal proof in a meeting under s 439A, such a document will not be a proof of debt in and for the purposes of a liquidation, at least unless the creditor acts in a way towards the liquidator which effectively puts forward the document as a proof of debt intended to be assessed by the liquidator. Otherwise a proof of debt lodged at an administrator’s meeting will not constitute a proof of debt in the liquidation.
For liquidators the learning here is simple: unless a creditor advises you otherwise the liquidator cannot consider or adjudicate upon a proof of debt lodged in a voluntary administration for the purposes of paying a distribution.
For creditors it is important that they realise that they have to lodge another proof of debt after the company is placed into liquidation at the second meeting of creditors of a voluntary and, indeed, that they have the opportunity to reassess their debt.
Re: Equititrust Limited (in liq)  QSC 346