Responding to Liquidation Management Ltd’s offer online of specialist insolvency advice, company director Judy Kang later found that Liquidation Management director Imran Khan is a disqualified insolvency practitioner. She alleges Mr Khan engineered appointment of Mohammed Jan as liquidator of her insolvent companies, with Mr Khan improperly managing these liquidations from behind the scenes.
In the High Court, Associate Judge Lester ruled there was no evidence that Mr Jan was failing doing his job properly, but he did order Mr Jan file later in court full details of all work charged to the liquidations by Mr Khan and his company.
Three companies owned by Ms Kang, also known as Ngoc Giau Kang, are in liquidation, with two of these companies owing Inland Revenue more than $1.5 million.
Ms Kang told the court she had a September 2024 telephone conversation with Mr Khan following her earlier online contact. She described him as appearing thoroughly professional, claiming to have had twenty years insolvency experience and having completed over two hundred company liquidations.
She says Mr Khan subsequently created a sense of urgency and panic, making numerous requests for early signature to resolutions putting her companies into liquidation. As it turned out, these resolutions appointed Mr Jan as liquidator.
Later learning that Mr Khan has been disqualified from acting as an insolvency practitioner, she tried unsuccessfully to have Mr Jan removed, saying Mr Jan lacked independence, alleging Mr Khan was pulling the strings.
Judge Lester ruled Insolvency Practitioners Regulation Act does not govern those merely giving financial or business advice. While disqualified to act as an insolvency practitioner, the Act did not stop Mr Khan giving general pre-liquidation advice about possible business strategies.
All contact with Ms Kang, after her companies were put into liquidation, came from Mr Jan directly.
Whilst Mr Jan then subcontracted much of the work to Mr Khan’s Liquidation Management Ltd, there was no evidence that Mr Jan was not bringing his independent judgment to liquidation decisions, Judge Lester ruled.
Separately, Ms Kang laid a complaint about Mr Jan to the Institute of Chartered Accountants professional conduct committee. While stating it is unusual for a liquidator to have no contact with a potential client before appointment, the committee said the evidence was that subsequently Mr Jan became actively involved in Ms Kang’s companies’ liquidations.
Kang v. Jan – High Court (29.05.25)
25.130