© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2008] FCA 894
Federal Court of Australia
2008-06-03
Emmett J
Original judgment source is linked above.
In these Orders, an Excluded Share is a fully paid ordinary share in Equigold held by Lihir Australian Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 121 554 443 as at the record date for the Scheme.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. Scheme of Arrangement Equigold NL ACN 060 235 145 Scheme Participants Level 36, Grosvenor Place 225 George Street Sydney NSW 2000 Australia T 61 2 9258 6000 F 61 2 9258 6999 Reference PHM ATCU SZD 02-1426-6484 ©Blake Dawson 2008 Contents CONTENTS 2
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 23 April 2008, the Court made orders for the plaintiff, Equigold NL (Equigold), to convene a meeting of certain of its members for the purposes of considering a proposed scheme of arrangement (the Scheme) between Equigold and most of its shareholders, being all shareholders other than holders in respect of shares held by Lihir Australian Holdings Pty Limited (the Lihir Acquirer). Those orders were varied on 30 April 2008 because of a difficulty in complying strictly with the date required for the dispatch of certain documents to members. The effect of the Scheme is that Equigold will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Lihir Gold Limited (LGL). 2 A meeting of shareholders was held on 30 May 2008. At the meeting, the resolution put concerning agreement to the Scheme was passed. A total of 145,767,610 votes were cast, of which 137,444,357 votes, representing 94.29% of all votes cast and 91.28% of shareholders who voted, were cast in favour of the resolution. While there were votes cast against the resolution, they represented only 5.71% of votes cast and 8.26% of shareholders who voted. Notwithstanding that some votes were cast against the resolution, no one has appeared to oppose the application presently being made by Equigold for approval of the Scheme, pursuant to s 411 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act). 3 Had there been opposition to the approval of the Scheme, the fact that the votes cast in favour represent substantially less than 90% of the total votes that could have been cast, if all of the members of Equigold participated in the meeting, may have been a relevant factor. However, as I have said, since there is no opposition, the 90% figure that might have been relevant for compulsory acquisition in the event of an offer is irrelevant. 4 I am satisfied that on 1 and 2 May 2008 a Scheme Booklet, which included the Notice of Scheme Meeting and Explanatory Statement approved by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC), together with a personalised proxy form and reply-paid envelope addressed to the share registrar, was dispatched by prepaid post, and in the case of shareholders outside Australia, by prepaid airmail, to all shareholders affected by the Scheme. That dispatch occurred in accordance with the orders made by the Court on 23 April 2008 as varied on 30 April 2008. 5 A notice of the hearing today was published in The Australian newspaper on 27 May 2008, in accordance with the orders made by the Court. By letter of 2 June 2008, ASIC has informed Equigold's solicitors that it has no objection to the Scheme. That indication has been given pursuant to s 411(17)(b) of the Act, having regard to ASIC's criteria for providing such a statement as set out in ASIC's Regulatory Guide 142, Schemes of Arrangement and ASIC Review. The Court has been informed that LGL intends to rely upon the Court's approval for the purposes of obtaining an exemption under s 3A(10) of the Securities Act of 1933 (US). 6 I have had regard to the affidavits of Nicola Enrico Antonio Giorgetta of 30 May 2008, David Andrew Cheng Kim Lim of 30 May 2008, Taylor Tracii Fam of 30 May 2008 and Stanley Robert Lewis of 2 June 2008. The evidence of those affidavits establishes the matters to which I have briefly referred. 7 I have also had regard to the affidavits that were read on 23 April 2008 in connection with the application by Equigold for orders convening the meeting of the shareholders of Equigold. On that occasion, those affidavits persuaded me that the terms of the Scheme, in the absence of opposition, were such that it would be likely to be approved by the Court if agreed to by the requisite majority of the members of Equigold, as contemplated by s 411. That evidence included evidence from appropriate experts concerning the consequences for shareholders in the event that the Scheme is approved. 8 The Scheme itself and the obligations of the parties involved in the Scheme were conditional upon certain events either occurring or not occurring. Clause 2.3 of the Scheme provides that each of Equigold and the Lihir Acquirer provide to the Court a certificate confirming that all of the conditions precedent in the Merger Implementation Agreement and the Scheme, other than approval of the Court, have been satisfied or waived in accordance with the Merger Implementation Agreement. I am satisfied from certificates tendered on behalf of Equigold signed by each of Equigold and the Lihir Acquirer, that the relevant provisions have either been satisfied or waived. 9 Section 411(11) of the Act provides that a copy of every order of the Court made under s 411 which is binding on members must be annexed to every copy of the constitution of the company issued after the order has been made. However, under s 411(12) the Court may, by order, exempt a body from complying with s 411(11). Equigold has asked the Court to make such an order and it is appropriate to do so. I propose to make an order under s 11(12). 10 In all of the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Scheme agreed to by the members should be approved pursuant to s 411. I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.
Associate: Dated: 17 June 2008 Counsel for the Plaintiff: Mr I Jackman SC Solicitor for the Plaintiff: Corrs Chambers Westgarth Date of Hearing: 3 June 2008 Date of Judgment: 3 June 2008