Background
John Ross Lindholm served as sole or joint liquidator of 13 companies in liquidation and as joint special purpose receiver of Banksia Securities Limited. In June 2023, Lindholm resigned from his position as a partner at KPMG to become a special advisor. On 19 May 2026, he notified KPMG of his intention to resign effective 30 June 2026. Upon that resignation, Lindholm would lose professional indemnity and fidelity insurance coverage held through KPMG—coverage that is statutorily required for liquidators. Most of the liquidations were at advanced stages with largely administrative tasks remaining, except for outstanding investigations in a few cases and distributions pending from related entities.
Amanda Coneyworth and Sarah Emily Seeckts, both chartered accountants and registered liquidators also employed at KPMG, consented to their appointment as joint and several liquidators of the companies and, where relevant, as special purpose receivers in Lindholm’s place. The two had day-to-day familiarity with the liquidations and would be supervised by KPMG staff already engaged with these matters.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Beach approved the appointment of Coneyworth and Seeckts as joint and several liquidators of 11 specified companies (effective 30 June 2026) under sections 473A and 499(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The court appointed Coneyworth as joint and several liquidator of I-Prosperity Capital Management Pty Ltd alongside the existing liquidator Philip Quinlan. Coneyworth and Seeckts were also appointed as joint and several special purpose receivers of Banksia Securities under section 283HB, and Lindholm was permitted to retire from that office.
The court granted leave under section 532(2) to permit the new liquidators to be appointed despite KPMG having outstanding claims for costs and disbursements exceeding $5,000 against the companies. The court further exempted the replacement liquidators from repeating procedural tasks already performed by Lindholm under section 533 and the Insolvency Practice Rules (Corporations) 2016.
Key Takeaways
- Courts have discretion under ss 473A and 499(3) of the Corporations Act to appoint replacement liquidators when a liquidator resigns, and can do so for pending as well as extant vacancies.
- Appointing joint and several liquidators from the same firm as the resigning appointee is favored when it achieves continuity, cost efficiency, and avoids the expense of convening creditors’ meetings.
- Practical considerations—such as loss of insurance coverage, advanced stage of administration, and the resigning liquidator’s voluntary decision—weigh heavily in favor of court-ordered replacement.
- Courts routinely grant leave under s 532(2) to permit appointment despite creditor status when such creditor claims (here, KPMG’s unpaid costs) exceed the statutory threshold.
Why It Matters
This decision confirms that courts will facilitate orderly transitions in liquidator appointments to protect creditor interests when the resigning liquidator is making a personal or voluntary exit and replacements possess appropriate qualifications and familiarity with the administration. The judgment illustrates how statutory insurance requirements for liquidators intersect with appointment procedures and underscores the practical utility of joint and several appointments in managing continuity. For insolvency practitioners, the case demonstrates that careful advance planning—arranging orderly exits and coordinating with successor firms—makes court intervention smoother and more likely to succeed.
The decision also shows that courts prioritize cost efficiency and continuity over formal procedural requirements, particularly where liquidations are at advanced stages with limited remaining work. By exempting the replacement liquidators from repeating prior procedural steps, the court recognized that rigid application of statutory duties would waste estate resources and impose needless burden on already-administered matters.