Clear Computer is still not out of the woods. As many as 25 jobs are at risk if an action which commenced in the Supreme Court last week is successful.
Two of Clear Computer's creditors have commenced an action that could overturn the deed of company arrangement put in place only a month ago. (See ARN, May 6, page1.) The action could result in Clear being forced into liquidation. Clear Computer has been trading as both distributor Vantage Point Technology and system integrator Clear Technology.
Like a couple of football teams appealing to a higher authority after a disputed referee's decision, ComTech and Software Spectrum have "called for the video" to review the circumstances around the voluntary administration of Clear and the subsequent deed as recommended by administrator Peter Ngan.
The creditors must believe the action can achieve a better financial return. As of May 1, the company had been returned to the control of directors Steve and Tania Stuart.
It is understood that some of the creditors were not satisfied with the deed, which will see them receiving five cents in the dollar for debts outstanding at the time of the appointment of the administrator.
The plaintiff's action is believed to relate to section 600A of the corporations law.
ARN was told by an independent corporate law solicitor: "This section attempts to overcome the control of a creditors meeting by those who have a relationship with the com-pany in administration. The court may make a broad range of orders including liquidating the company."
Independent legal sources explained to ARN that 600A may be summarised as providing disaffected creditors a right to apply to the court for a review of a resolution put to a creditor's meeting where the outcome has been effectively determined by the vote of related creditors, and the resolution is thought to be: 1. Contrary to the interest of the creditors as a whole or of a class of creditors as a whole; or 2. Has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice the interests of the creditors who voted for or against the proposed resolution to the extent that it is unreasonable in that it may benefit the related creditors or by the nature of the relationship between the related creditors and the company.
It is anticipated that the action could provide some rulings on what constitutes insolvent or preferential trading.
As the time of going to press, a date for the hearing had not been set but is expected to be within the coming week.