REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 On 21 January 2007, the Court made orders pursuant to s 411(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) convening a meeting of the members of Hostworks Group Limited (Hostworks) for the purpose of considering, and if thought fit agreeing to, with or without modification, a proposed scheme of arrangement with the members of Hostworks: see In the Matter of Hostworks Group Limited [2008] FCA 64 (the Scheme).
2 The purpose of the Scheme is to effect a takeover of Hostworks by Broadcast Australia Pty Ltd (Broadcast Australia) so that Hostworks will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Broadcast Australia. It is commonly called a transfer scheme. It is more fully described in the Scheme Booklet which was issued with the notice of the Scheme meeting. The Scheme was supported by an Implementation Agreement between Hostworks and Broadcast Australia, and a Deed Poll by which Broadcast Australia committed itself to perform its obligations to pay to the members of Hostworks the price for the shares that, under the Scheme, were to be transferred to Broadcast Australia. Particular features of the Scheme are discussed in the earlier judgment at [31]-[41].
3 Subject to two matters which I will mention below, the Scheme meeting was duly convened in accordance with the Orders made, save in respect of 26 members who were sent the Scheme booklet and proxy form on 9 January 2008 instead of 8 January 2008. Hostworks seeks a further variation of the Orders to accommodate that circumstance.
4 At the Scheme meeting on 13 February 2008, the Scheme was approved by the requisite majorities for the purpose of s 411(4)(a)(ii) of the Act. Some 96.56% of the members of Hostworks who voted and 99.06% of the shares in Hostworks which were voted were in favour of the Scheme. This is an application for approval by the Court of the scheme pursuant to s 411(4)(b) of the Act.
5 The Orders made on 21 December 2007 were varied on 15 January 2008 to permit the later dispatch by one day of the Scheme documents, including the notice convening the Scheme meeting, from 7 January to 8 January 2008 (see the earlier reasons at [48]). That variation took effect nunc pro tunc from 21 December 2007. As noted, those Orders were not complied with in respect of 26 of some 1300 members of Hostworks who were sent the Scheme booklet instead on 9 January 2008. There is no suggestion that that was other than an administrative error. The Court is therefore also asked to further vary the Orders made on 21 December 2007 by substituting 9 January 2008 for 8 January 2008.
6 I do not think anything turns on the fact that 26 Scheme booklets were sent to members on 9 January 2008. The shareholders of Hostworks are deemed by cl 13.5 of its constitution to have been received one day after they were posted, namely, either 9 January 2008 for almost all its members, or 10 January for 26 of its members. The Scheme meeting, in the absence of a Court order to the contrary, must be convened in accordance with Pt 2G.2 of the Act. Hence, s 249HA requires at least 28 days' notice of the Scheme meeting. That is also in accordance with Hostworks' constitution. There were 34 days between 10 January 2008 and the Scheme meeting on 13 February 2008, so the required notice was given. Even accepting that not all mail will be delivered the following business day (despite the deeming effect of cl 13.5 of Hostworks' constitution) there is still a leeway of six days available.
7 In those circumstances, I propose to make the order sought, further varying the Orders made on 21 December 2007, and that the further variation should operate nunc pro tunc so that the reference to 8 January 2008 should be taken to refer, and to always have referred, to 9 January 2008 in the orders made on 21 December 2007.
8 I also propose to order that the words "as at the close of business on 7 January 2008" after the word "plaintiff's members" appearing in the Orders of 21 December 2007 be varied to that effect. They should also have effect as if they were always in the Orders of 21 December 2007. They simply reflect the cut-off date by which a member needed to be registered to be entitled to the dispatch of the documents relating to the Scheme meeting within the time permitted by the Orders. I note that there are seven new members of Hostworks after 7 January 2008 who have been sent the Scheme documents relating to the Scheme meeting within two business days of them becoming members of Hostworks.
9 I turn, then, to consider whether the Scheme should be approved.
10 The principles upon which I should do so are now fairly settled. The Court is not bound to approve the Scheme simply because it has previously made orders for the convening of the Scheme meeting and the requisite majority of the members have agreed to it: see Re NRMA Ltd (2000) 33 ACSR 595 at 607. However, where a majority of members have approved the Scheme, the Court should be slow to conclude that the scheme is unreasonable or unfair, provided that the members have been properly informed of matters relevant to the making of their decision, as that would otherwise involve the Court substituting its commercial judgment for that of the body of members of Hostworks. The Courts are generally reluctant to make decisions contrary to the views of members expressed at such a meeting: see, for example, Re Central Pacific Minerals NL (2002) FCA 239 at [12]-[14].
11 In a later decision concerning NRMA in Re NRMA Ltd (No.2) (2000) 156 FLR 412, Santow J said at 420:
When it comes to appraising the fairness of a scheme, the court does not determine that the scheme is intrinsically in the members' interest or otherwise.
12 The Court should, nevertheless, consider whether there has been an absence of oppression and that the arrangement is one that is capable of being accepted. The Court has the further duty of satisfying itself (where the issue arises) that the arrangement is fair and equitable between different classes of shareholders and as between shareholders and those who will also benefit from the scheme (see Re Central Pacific Minerals NL (2002) FCA 239 at [12]-[13]) and it should ensure that all the conditions required by s 411 of the Act have been complied with, and that the majority of the members have acted in good faith and not in pursuit of some illegitimate purpose.
13 It is not necessary to spend much time on the procedural requirements of Pt 5.1 of the Act. Hostworks delivered the application and the principal affidavits to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) before the Orders of 21 December 2007, and then delivered the Orders of that date and the Scheme booklet which was registered with ASIC on 21 December 2007. I note that on 19 February 2008 ASIC indicated under s 411(17)(b) of the Act that it has no objection to the scheme. ASIC there stated that it reached that view because it is satisfied that its criteria in Regulatory Guides 60 and 142 have been satisfied.
14 A copy of the Scheme booklet, including the notice of the Scheme meeting and the proxy forms (all of which is annexure PJW29 to the affidavit of Peter John Wildy sworn on 14 December 2007) (the documents) were dispatched to the members of Hostworks on 8 and 9 January 2008. The Scheme meeting was then duly held on 13 February 2008 at the time and place stipulated in the Orders, and it was chaired by Mr Stephen Chapman, also as ordered. As noted, at that meeting a resolution to approve the Scheme was passed by the majority of members present (95.56 per cent) and by the majority of shares voted at the meeting (99.06 per cent).
15 In addition to the direct notification to members, a notice of hearing in relation to this application was published in the public notices of The Australian newspaper on 15 February 2008, also in accordance with the orders made on 21 December 2007.
16 I turn to address substantive considerations.
17 There is no appearance today by any person in opposition to the Scheme, and no notice of opposition has previously been given either to Hostworks or to the Court by any person or entity.
18 Section 411(17) of the Act provides:
The Court must not approve a compromise or arrangement under this section unless:
(a) it is satisfied that the compromise or arrangement has not been proposed for the purpose of enabling any person to avoid the operation of any of the provisions of Chapter 6; or
(b) there is produced to the Court a statement in writing by ASIC stating that ASIC has no objection to the compromise or arrangement;
but the Court need not approve a compromise or arrangement merely because a statement by ASIC stating that ASIC has no objection to the compromise or arrangement has been produced to the Court as mentioned in paragraph (b).
19 As noted above, on 19 February 2008, ASIC produced a statement for the purposes of s 411(17)(b) that it had no objection to the Scheme. Hostworks, thus, does not have the burden of satisfying s 411(17)(a), as the two limbs of s 411(17) are alternatives: see, for example, Re Coles Group Limited (No. 2) [2007] VSC 523 at [33] and [80]. The Court may, but not must, therefore approve the Scheme. The matters the subject of s 411(17)(a) may, but need not, be taken into account by the court in an appropriate case in the exercise of that discretion: see Coles Group Limited (No 2) [2007] VSC 523 at [23].
20 In this matter, I am satisfied that the Scheme is not proposed for the purpose of enabling any person to avoid the operation of any of the provisions of Chapter 6 of the Act. It is now commonplace that transactions which could be carried out under Chapter 6 are carried out by a scheme of arrangement under Chapter 5. As others have said, the legislation is neutral as to which choice a corporation may make: see, for example, Re Coles Group Limited (No 2) [2007] VSC 523 at [43] and [47].
21 The effect of the ASIC Regulatory Guides 60 and 142, in the context of the ASIC's letter that it does not object to the Scheme, supports my conclusion. ASIC's criterion in those Regulatory Guides indicates that it has satisfied itself that Hostworks shareholders are not being adversely affected by the takeover proceeding by a scheme of arrangement under Chapter 5, rather than a takeover scheme under Chapter 6. The adoption of the scheme of arrangement option under Chapter 5 is driven by understandable commercial reasons which are, in material respects, similar to those considered in Re IWL Limited [2007] VSC 530 at [6], in which a similar conclusion was reached.
22 On this aspect, finally I note that there is nothing which might suggest that Hostworks members have not received all the material information that they need for their decision, or have not had a reasonable and equal opportunity to share in the benefits provided under the Scheme. The evidence indicates that Hostworks members are not adversely affected by the takeover proceeding by a scheme of arrangement rather than a takeover under Chapter 6, and are being treated equally.
23 I am also satisfied that the majority of members have acted in good faith and not in pursuit of some illegitimate purpose.
24 The effect of the Scheme is that Hostworks will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Broadcast Australia. As noted, a scheme involving the acquisition of all of an entity's issued capital for cash consideration in order that the entity become a wholly owned subsidiary of an acquirer is a common use of the Pt 5.1 procedure. Recent examples include Re MIM Holdings Ltd (2003) 45 ACSR 554 and Re Mincom Ltd (No. 3) (2007) 25 ACLC 44.
25 The Scheme in no sense works unfairly as between Hostworks members, because there is a single class of shareholders who are treated identically. I note that Hostworks had a number of option-holders prior to the Scheme. They are not directly affected by it, and each has agreed to the cancellation of their options for payment of what is called under the Scheme the cancellation consideration. The cancellation consideration payable for the cancellation of options takes into account the strike price of options and will result in payment of consideration equivalent to the Scheme consideration to those option-holders, so they are being treated rateably with shareholders.
26 I note that the only potential additional benefits available to directors of Hostworks or other associates of Hostworks are, firstly, a bonus to Mr Gauvin, to which he will be entitled if the Scheme becomes effective - it was fully disclosed in para 9.5(e) of the Scheme booklet - and, secondly, a retirement allowance which will be payable to Mr Peter Shore in the event that prior to December 2008 he ceases to be chairman of Hostworks at the direction of Broadcast Australia following the implementation of the Scheme - that, too, is disclosed in para 9.5(f) of the Scheme booklet. I note further that Mr Shore did not participate in the meetings of directors of Hostworks leading to the proposal of the Scheme. Neither of those special features, in the circumstances in which they arise, indicates that, as shareholders, the members of Hostworks were not being treated equally. Nor do those particular benefits tend to indicate any unfairness to Hostworks shareholders, or that the Scheme is not put forward in good faith.
27 As I noted in the earlier reasons, Hostworks has procured and made available an independent expert's report to accompany its statement to its members in the Scheme booklet, even though it was not required to do so. The independent expert KPMG concluded that the Scheme is fair and reasonable and, in the absence of an alternative offer on better terms, is in the best interests of the members of Hostworks.
28 Finally on this topic, I note that 320 members attended the Scheme meeting in person or by proxy, being 26.31% of the total number of members entitled to vote at the Scheme meeting and that 96.56% of those members who voted in person or by proxy voted in favour of the Scheme, representing 99.06% of the total shares voted.
29 Hostworks has disclosed that, following the Scheme meeting, one of its members Mr Peter Erman by email raised a concern that not all of his votes against the then proposed Scheme had been counted. Its inquiries have revealed that Mr Erman was registered to vote at the Scheme meeting in his name for 424,950 shares, and through Peter Erman Pty Ltd for 600,000 shares. Those votes were counted. He was also entitled to vote in respect of 675,050 shares held in the name of Peter George Robert Erman, and 550,000 shares held in the name of Peter George Erman. I accept that those votes were not counted. I accept that that arose because the employee of Computershare Investor Services Pty Ltd, the company appointed to manage the share register for Hostworks in relation to the Scheme meeting, and that person who was also the returning officer, did not recognise that Mr Erman was the holder of those shares because the shareholder names were slightly different. Hence, Mr Erman was not registered to vote or given a ballot paper in respect of those two additional holdings. If the additional holdings of Mr Erman excluded from the result of the poll as declared are taken into account as votes against the Scheme, the shares voted in favour of the Scheme would fall to 98.14% of the total shares voted, rather than 99.06%.
30 The Scheme has, therefore, been approved by an overwhelming majority, both in number of members and in the percentage of votes cast. In my view, for those reasons, the Court should approve the Scheme pursuant to s 411(4)(b) of the Act.
31 There is one further aspect of Hostworks' application to address. Section 411(6) empowers the Court to approve a scheme of arrangement which has been altered after shareholder approval. In Re Matine Limited (1998) 28 ACSR 268, Santow J at 284 said:
The discretion of the Court under s 411(6) is at large, but the court would obviously have regard to whether the proposed variation was so novel or substantial as to take the varied scheme beyond the reasonable contemplation of shareholders at the time they agreed to it.
32 And in Re Investorinfo Limited (2005) 25 ACLC 44, Gyles J at [7] said that:
If the alteration is of a minor kind which does not really affect the details of the scheme, then the court has power to approve the scheme as amended … The discretion may be exercised where the amendment involves the smooth working of the scheme without affecting its substance.
33 Hostworks seeks an order that the Scheme be approved subject to an alteration to the method of payment of the Scheme consideration so as to allow the payment to be made by electronic funds transfer into the nominated bank account of members, and to provide a mechanism by which members of Hostworks who previously had authorised Hostworks to deposit dividends into their nominated account to "opt out" and receive the Scheme consideration by bank cheque. That proposed alteration to the Scheme was identified by the chairman at the Scheme meeting. A variation of a shareholder approved scheme in similar terms was made in Re Rocksoft Ltd [2006] FCA 1098, as the proposed variation involved simply a commercial consideration which had no novelty or significance to the nature of the scheme or to the members.
34 I see no reason not to give effect to the proposed variation to the Scheme, because I think it falls into the same category. I will do so.
35 Section 411(11) of the Act contemplates that a copy of the order made by the Court under s 411(4)(b) will be annexed to every copy of the constitution of Hostworks after the order has been made. However, s 411(12) provides that:
The Court may, by order, exempt a body from compliance with subsection (11), or determine the period during which the body must comply with that subsection.
36 In Re Equinox Resources Ltd (2004) 49 ACSR 692, EM Heenan J at [22] indicated that the purpose of section 411(11) was:
…to ensure that any modification of the rights of shareholders of the company which is the subject of the scheme, or any other provision in the scheme which may affect the interests of persons dealing with the company, such as prospective creditors or purchasers of shares, will be sure to have the opportunity of seeing what the exact rights of shareholders in the company or of its creditors are, as modified, if at all, by the scheme which has been approved.
37 His Honour there held that where the proposed scheme would not involved modification of any rights of shareholders, creditors, or of other persons dealing with the company, it would be an appropriate case for dispensation from the requirement to comply with s 411(11): see also Re Rocksoft Ltd [2006] FCA 1098 at [16].
38 Upon implementation of the Scheme (as approved by the Court), Broadcast Australia will be the sole shareholder of Hostworks. The Scheme will not have involved modification to the rights of shareholders' or of creditors' entitlements, but simply involve a change in the shareholding of Hostworks and a cancellation of the options in Hostworks on issue at the time the Scheme was proposed. This also seems, therefore, an appropriate matter in which to order, pursuant to s 411(12) that Hostworks be exempt from complying with s 411(11) of the Act.
39 For those reasons, I will therefore make the following orders:
- Paragraph 3 of the Orders made by the Court on 21 December 2007 ("Orders"), as varied by the Orders of the Court made on 15 January 2008, be further varied by:
1.5 the replacement of the date "8 January 2008" with the date "9 January 2008"; and
1.6 the insertion of the words "as at the close of business on 7 January 2008" after the words "plaintiff's members" appearing therein.
- The order in para 1 above have effect nunc pro tunc so that:
1.7 the reference to "8 January 2008" in paragraph 3 of the Orders be taken to refer, and always to have referred, to"9 January 2008"; and
1.8 the words "as at the close of business on 7 January 2008" be taken to be included in paragraph 3 of the Orders, and always to have been included, after the words "plaintiff's members".
- Pursuant to s 411(6) of the Corporations Act, 2001 (Cth) ("Act") the scheme of arrangement for the transfer of all the fully paid ordinary shares in the issued capital of the plaintiff to Broadcast Australia Pty Ltd, being the Scheme contained in and more particularly described in Appendix C to the Scheme Booklet comprising annexure "DG-1" to the affidavit of Doris Christine Grave sworn 15 February 2008 be altered so that clause 3.4(b) is to read as follows:
3.4 (b) The obligations of BA to pay the Scheme Consideration will be satisfied by BA, before 12.00 (noon) on the Implementation Date, depositing in cleared funds into an account in the name of Hostworks an amount equal to the aggregate Scheme Consideration payable to each Scheme Participant, such amount to be held by Hostworks on trust for the Scheme Participants (except that any interest on the amount will be for the account of BA) and for the purpose of sending the aggregate Scheme Consideration to the Scheme Participants either:
(i) where Scheme Participants have previously authorised Hostworks to deposit their dividends directly into their nominated bank account, and they have not instructed Hostworks otherwise prior to or on the Record Date, by direct deposit into the Scheme Participant's nominated bank account by not later than the Implementation Date;
(ii) where Scheme Participants have previously authorised Hostworks to deposit their dividends directly into their nominated bank account, and they have instructed Hostworks to pay their Scheme Consideration to them by cheque prior to or on the Record Date, by dispatching or procuring the dispatch by not later than the Implementation Date to the Scheme Participant by pre-paid post to the address of the Scheme Participant in the Register a cheque in Australian currency drawn on an Australian bank in the name of the Scheme Participant; or
(iii) where Scheme Participants have not previously authorised Hostworks to deposit their dividends directly into their nominated bank account, by dispatching or procuring the dispatch by not later than the Implementation Date to each of the Scheme Participants by pre-paid post to the address of each the Scheme Participants in the Register a cheque in Australian currency drawn on an Australian bank in the name of the Scheme Participant,
for in an amount equal to the number of Hostworks Shares held by that Scheme Participant at the Record Date multiplied by the Scheme Consideration.