“Do I really have to sell that flour mill?”
A bread researching NFP went through a restructure. Its subsidiaries held IP and physical assets the plaintffs alleged were held by way of chartiable trust. The assets included a significant landholding (~$62M) which had a “pilot mill” on it; for flour experimentation.
The plaintiffs claimed the assets were held on charitable trust.
A receiver was appointed in respect of the assets and granted leave to approach the Court for guidance. Those overarching charitable trust proceedings settled: [15].
But the Receiver approached the Court to seek confirmation it would be justified in not selling the property.
It’s a tricky issue.
The property might be worth up to $62M, with the potential for that value to fall. Also – if sold – the pilot mill may be demolished (against the spirit of the charitable trust): [19], [20] and [21].
The Court considered the dominant consideration was the preservation of the pilot mill: [23]; especially as the pilot mill charitable trust would likely be upheld, meaning – if destroyed – the pilot mill would have to be rebuilt.
The Court gave a direction that the Receiver would be justified in not selling: [24].
