Core lab at centre of SPF false-labelling scandal enters liquidation; same management sets up new company to keep taking orders, with around A$20 million in debt left in limbo

Australian sunscreen base formulation manufacturer Wild Child Laboratories entered voluntary liquidation in August, leaving around A$20 million in unpaid debts—of which 11 sunscreen brands collectively claim more than A$19 million, with a further A$400,000-plus owed to the Australian Taxation Office. According to a report by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC News), about one month before liquidation proceedings commenced, Wild Child sold its core assets to newly registered Heliora. Heliora has former Wild Child chief executive Tom Curnow as its CEO and was set up by Wild Child's director and major shareholder Paul Waldren; it inherited Wild Child's existing customers, staff and TGA manufacturing licence.

In a statement, Curnow said the transaction was brokered by Wild Child's secured lender and a restructuring advisory firm, that "no payment or distribution was made to Wild Child shareholders in respect of the transaction," and that Heliora had also assumed defined obligations to suppliers and certain creditors. However, on the question of whether the new company was set up to evade Wild Child's debts, Heliora and liquidator PKF gave conflicting accounts. Heliora, in its statement, "firmly rejects any suggestion that the company was established to evade Wild Child's debts" and said "the liquidator has not raised any concerns about the transaction with us"; ABC News reported that PKF did not respond to requests for comment.

What makes this asset transfer more contentious is the nature of the business Wild Child sold: the 20 sunscreens subject to a mass recall last year all used base formulations manufactured by Wild Child. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) said at the time that "preliminary testing indicated that the base formulation could not have an SPF higher than 21," and that some products had actual SPF as low as 4. The trigger for the entire recall was independent testing by consumer organisation Choice on Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF 50+ product, which returned an SPF result of only 4.

Ultra Violette subsequently filed proceedings in the Federal Court, alleging that Wild Child made representations that the product had an SPF of 50 or 50+ on six separate occasions, constituting misleading or deceptive conduct and breach of contract. According to its statement of claim, between July and September 2025 Ultra Violette commissioned four laboratories to conduct seven independent SPF tests, which produced average ratings of 2.9, 3.0, 3.6, 4.1, 10.5, 21.5 and 25.18 respectively—none reaching the 50+ claimed on the label. A test commissioned by Wild Child itself returned an SPF of 21.7, also well below the claimed value.

The liquidator's report to creditors puts concrete figures on the losses caused by the liquidation: Ultra Violette is listed as being owed approximately A$7 million, premium brand Naked Sundays is listed as being owed approximately A$8.2 million, and Aspect Skincare brand owner Advanced Skin Technology is listed as being owed approximately A$2.5 million. Advanced Skin Technology, which recalled two of its own sunscreens, has also filed proceedings in the Federal Court against Wild Child, alleging that Wild Child failed to exercise reasonable care in formulation development, manufacture and the assurance of SPF 50+, with its claim covering refunds, credits, write-offs, loss of sales and profits, recall labour and reputational damage.

Wild Child's defence strategy is to push responsibility back onto the brands and the testing side. In its defence, the company contends that "Ultra Violette assumed all legal obligations required of an Australian therapeutic goods sponsor," and joins SPF testing bodies including Princeton Consumer Research (PCR) as "co-tortfeasors." PCR, the testing body used for a large number of Australian sunscreen products, has already been found to have provided unreliable SPF test data; Wild Child accordingly alleges that PCR "engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive."

Wild Child's liquidation casts a shadow over the multiple ongoing proceedings. Ultra Violette told ABC News that the liquidation "has had a direct impact on our Federal Court proceedings"—"generally speaking, we cannot continue proceedings against a company in liquidation without the court's permission." The company also said it understood the liquidator was reviewing the asset transfer from Wild Child to Heliora and the circumstances surrounding it. Curnow, for his part, said "Wild Child's insurer has confirmed in writing that the liquidation has not altered or withdrawn cover previously confirmed in respect of the relevant claims, and that the relevant insurance remains in force following the liquidation."

When a formulation that may have an SPF as low as 4 has been circulating for an extended period under the name SPF 50+, what consumers have been exposed to is not a mere commercial dispute, but ultraviolet exposure under the belief that they were protected. The TGA's GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) audit of Wild Child's facilities last year "did not identify any manufacturing issues that would have caused reduced SPF"—meaning the problem lies in formulation and testing, not on the production line. Heliora, in its statement, said it has "lodged with the TGA the documentation required to support the transfer of the GMP licence, and is progressing this with the regulator." The base formulation used in the recalled products has been discontinued by Wild Child, but Heliora has inherited Wild Child's original customers, manufacturing operations and TGA manufacturing licence, continuing to take on orders as a new legal entity. Wild Child's roughly A$20 million in debts remains in limbo, awaiting the liquidator's review findings and the court's ultimate ruling.