//
[1995] FCA 1160
General information, not legal advice.
Federal Court of Australia
1995-10-13
Mr P
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English brief of this judgment and email it to you: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
CATCHWORDS CORPORATIONS - compromises and arrangements - particular schemes - application to convene meetings of shareholders and noteholders Corporations Law, s411(1), (2) CHALLENGE BANK LTD (ACN 009 230 433) NO. WAG 3048 OF 1995 JUSTICE R D NICHOLSON PERTH 13 OCTOBER 1995
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) LIMITED DISTRIBUTION WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY) GENERAL DIVISION ) NO. WAG 3048 OF 1995 IN THE MATTER OF: CHALLENGE BANK LTD (ACN 009 230 433) Applicant CORAM: JUSTICE R D NICHOLSON DATE: 13 OCTOBER 1995 PLACE: PERTH REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This is an application pursuant to s411(1) Corporations Law which seeks the convening of certain meetings for the purpose of having shareholders, convertible note-holders and option‑holders consider and approve various schemes of arrangement. I am satisfied on the evidence before me that matters arising under s411(2) of the Corporations Law offer no inhibition to the Court making an order in response to the application. As the terms of Exhibit 1 make apparent, the Australian Securities Commission ("the Commission") has had reasonable opportunity both to examine and make submissions on the proposed schemes and meetings and, both by implication and by oral submission, it has affirmed that the relevant time limits have been complied with. I am also satisfied on the evidence to which I have been taken in some detail that it is appropriate that these schemes should go before the various meetings at which it is proposed they will be considered. It is made clear in the documents supporting the application, as I make clear now, that the Court in making the orders sought is not granting its approval to the scheme. It is ordering that these schemes are in a form which should go forward to each of the relevant meetings.
The evidence to which my attention has been directed is evidence which is not opposed by the Commission and, in addition, it is apparent from the evidence that the supervision of the Commission has resulted in some amendments to the terms of the proposed schemes which are to be considered by the relevant meetings. For those reasons I am prepared to make the orders in terms of the minute of the applicant as amended in handwriting in paragraph 4 and paragraph 14 and with the addition of paragraph 15, which minute I have initialled for identification. I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice R D Nicholson. Associate: Date:
APPEARANCES Counsel for the Applicant: Mr P G Hely QC and Mr S K Dharmananda
Solicitors for the Applicant: Corrs Chambers Westgarth Counsel for Australian Securities Commission: Mr A Taylor
Solicitors for Australian Securities Commission: Mr A Taylor Date of Hearing: 13 October 1995 Date of Judgment: 13 October 1995