Skip to main content

Babcock and Brown Limited

Insolvency case information

Details

Appointment type: Voluntary administration / Liquidation
Appointment date: 13 March 2009
ACN: 108 614 955
Appointee(s): David Lombe
Office: Sydney 

Enquiries:

General enquiries
Connor Ohtaras
Tel: +61 2 9322 7511
Email

Media enquiries
Kari Keenan
Tel: +61 2 9322 7000
Email

URL: http://www.deloitte.com/au/babcockandbrown

Related Links

ASIC
Insolvency information sheets

Help for workers who have recently lost their jobs
Job Services Australia publication

Taking care of yourself after retrenchment or financial loss
Beyond Blue publication

Babcock & Brown Limited ("BBL") is the ultimate holding company of the Babcock & Brown Group. BBL is a shareholder of Babcock & Brown International Pty Limited ("BBIPL"), the intermediate holding company. All assets of the Group are held by BBIPL and its subsidiaries. 

Deloitte Partners David Lombe and Simon Cathro were appointed Voluntary Administrators of Babcock & Brown Limited on 13 March 2009. 

BBL's Second Meeting of Creditors was held on 24 August 2009 and creditors resolved for BBL to be wound up. David Lombe and Simon Cathro were appointed the Joint Liquidators pursuant to Section 446A of the Corporations Act 2001. Mr Cathro resigned as liquidator of BBL on 9 August 2011, and David Lombe is the sole Liquidator of BBL.

Can noteholders assign their debt to a third party to manage their claim?

You may recall that in June 2023, David Lombe (the Liquidator of Babcock & Brown Limited (In Liquidation)) wrote to Noteholders because it had recently come to our attention that Bookarelli Pty Ltd (Bookarelli) was approaching various individuals and entities who may have a claim as a creditor of the Company, offering to “represent” them in their dealings with the Liquidator.

Whilst noteholders may assign their debt to a third party to manage their claims, we consider it appropriate to advise Noteholders of the following:

  • Engaging a third party to act on the Noteholders behalf will not result in a greater dividend being payable to the Noteholder;
  • Engaging a third party to act on the Noteholder’s behalf will not result in an expedited dividend being payable to the Noteholder;
  • One of the entities which we understand has approached Noteholders about managing their claims is Bookarelli. It is appropriate to note that Bookarelli also represents shareholders who have, and are continuing, to pursue claims against the Company; and
  • Bookarelli’s representation of both Noteholders and shareholders may be a conflict of interest as the claims made and filed by those shareholders managed and financed by Bookarelli, seek to elevate their claims to the level of general creditors (i.e. above sub-ordinated Noteholders). As such, if Bookarelli’s shareholders succeed (which they have not to date) those shareholders will be paid any dividends in preference to the Noteholders. 

We want to be clear that engaging Bookarelli to liaise with the Liquidator in relation to your debt will have no effect on whether your debt is admitted or not, and will have no effect on how quickly any dividend will be paid. The liquidator of the Company is obliged to properly investigate and assess all proofs of debts that are submitted, in order to determine who the true creditors of the Company are. The Liquidator does not have a vested interest in the number or quantum of the debts of the Company.

If you are contacted by any person in respect ofyour claim as a Noteholder and are not sure what to do, please contact us by email: bandbltd@deloitte.com.au

I am posting this website update to advise noteholders and shareholders of a new application against me as the Liquidator of Babcock & Brown (BBL).

Background information

As some of you know, over the course of the liquidation to date, Bookarelli has funded five previous Court proceedings against me, in my capacity as Liquidator of BBL (the details of these five previous Court proceedings were covered in my December 2024 update and so are not repeated again here).

Notably, Bookarelli pursued the first four proceedings all the way to the High Court (losing each time) and in the case of the fifth proceeding, the Court has ordered that it be permanently stayed because its commencement was an abuse of process.

The first proceeding (the Grant-Taylor Proceeding) has been concluded.

In relation to the second, third and fourth proceedings (the Masters, Broome and Wilhelm Proceedings) a lump sum costs award in my favour was ordered on 21 November 2024, which was to be quantified by the Court’s Referee. These costs will be sought from Bookarelli at first instance, and if not paid by them, will be sought from the individual shareholder applicants that were parties to each of the above proceedings. Bookarelli has since filed an application urging the Court not to adopt the Referee’s Report, and my
submissions in favour of the adoption of the Report was filed on 3 June 2025. I
am presently awaiting the Court’s decision as to whether its Referee’s Report
will be accepted or not, which I do not expect to be too far away.

In relation to the fifth proceeding (the Pain Proceeding), a permanent stay of proceedings and costs were awarded in my favour. I am currently seeking to agree those costs with Bookarelli (as I am required to do by the Court’s Practice Notes) however, as those discussions are sensitive, confidential and ongoing, I cannot say too much more about this process at the current time.

Zsadony Proceedings – New Proceedings

As noted in my December update, late last year I received new proof of debt claims (which were not connected to any of the previous claims) and in January this year I received some more proof of debt claims. These new proofs of debt were rejected by me on 19 February 2025 after careful consideration of the evidence provided by the claimants.

On 6 March 2025, a sixth Court proceeding was commenced (led by the first plaintiff, Julius Zsadony) seeking to reverse my decision to reject the new proof of debt claims and to have them admitted in the winding up of BBL. This sixth proceeding (the Zsadony Proceeding) is effectively identical to the five proceedings mentioned above, save that the plaintiffs are now basing their case on two instances of non-disclosure (instead of the previous five) and are also advancing a “no transaction” case, being that the plaintiffs would not have purchased shares or notes in BBL (or would have sold the shares or notes they held) had disclosure of certain information been made on 8 November 2008 and 8 December 2008.

I am defending the Zsadony Court Proceeding.

Queries

Should you have any queries regarding the above, please contact us by email to bandbltd@deloitte.com.au