Howard v Mechtler

Federal Court of Australia|2007-12-19|Before: McKerracher J

INTRODUCTION 1 The applicant, Laserbond issued a prospectus and lodged it with the Australian and Securities Investments Commission (ASIC) on 3 September 2007. The prospectus made clear that Laserbond was intending to apply for its securities to be listed for official quotation on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX). The offer under the prospectus was fully subscribed. However, through a misunderstanding, while all other formalities were complied with in relation to that process, the necessary documents to achieve admission to the ASX were provided to the ASX one day late. ASX has confirmed that if remedial orders are made by the Court in relation to and consequential upon that one day delay, there is no reason why Laserbond should not be listed. 2 ASIC, in also indicating lack of opposition to the relief sought does so subject to the relevant securities being admitted to quotation within five business days of the making of the order. I am now informed that has occurred. These proceedings were commenced on 10 December 2007. There is an obvious urgency about the matter. The urgency includes the desire that if a listing is to be permitted, it should be within a market that is from a time point of view, reasonably close to the market which operated at the time at which the listing was intended to occur. 3 While it is not obvious that any person would be adversely affected by remedial orders being granted, leave has also been granted for any person interested or affected by the orders to be heard in relation to them on giving 24 hours notice.

RELIEF SOUGHT 15 To overcome the one day delay and the consequences attaching to it which are described below, Laserbond has sought the following orders:

The period set out in sub-sections 723(3)(b) and 724(1)(b)(ii) of the Corporations Act for the admission to quotation by the ASX Limited ("ASX") of securities issued pursuant to the Prospectus dated 3 September 2007 (the "Prospectus") be extended to 5 business days after the making of this order.
Subject to the Applicant's securities being admitted to quotation by the ASX within 5 business days after the making of this order: (a) Pursuant to section 254E of the Corporations Act, the issue of shares by the Applicant pursuant to the Prospectus is hereby validated and confirmed. (b) Pursuant to section 1322(4)(a) of the Corporations Act, the issue of options by the Applicant pursuant to the Prospectus is not invalid by reason of any contravention of section 723 or section 724 of the Corporations Act.
The Applicant do forthwith lodge a copy of these orders with the Australian Securities & Investments Commission.
Upon the Applicant becoming listed on the ASX, the Applicant do make an announcement to the ASX disclosing the terms of these orders.
The Applicant and all other interested or affected parties have liberty to apply to vary these orders upon first giving 24 hours prior written notice.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK 16 Section 723(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (CA) is in the following terms: If a disclosure document for an offer of securities states or implies that the securities are to be quoted on a financial market (whether in Australia or elsewhere) and: a. an application for the admission of the securities to quotation is not made within 7 days after the date of the disclosure document; or b. the securities are not admitted to quotation within 3 months after the date of the disclosure document; then c. an issue or transfer of securities in response to an application made under the disclosure document is void; and d. the person offering the securities must return the money received by the person from the applicants as soon as practicable. 17 As observed in the matter of Re Insurance Australia Group Ltd (2003) 21 ACLC 1,107 at 1,111, while this section does not impose a duty, its effect is that it prescribes the adverse consequences of not applying and achieving quotation within the stipulated periods. The same observation applies in relation to the consequence which flow by reason of s 724(2) CA. Again, it prescribes a consequence rather than a duty as such. 18 In s 724 CA, subss (1)(b) and (2) provide relevantly: (1) If a person offers securities under a disclosure document and: … (b) the disclosure document states or implies that the securities are to be quoted on a financial market (whether in Australia or elsewhere) and: (i) an application for the admission to quotation is not made within 7 days after the date of the disclosure document; or (ii) the securities are not admitted to quotation within 3 months after the date of the disclosure document; or … the person must deal under subsection (2) with any applications for the securities made under the disclosure document that have not resulted in an issue or transfer of the securities… (2) The person must either: (a) repay the money received by the person from the applicants; or (b) give the applicants: (i) the documents required by subsection (3); and (ii) 1 month to withdraw their application and be repaid; or (c) issue or transfer the securities to the applicants and give them: (i) the documents required by subsection (3); and (ii) 1 month to withdraw their application and be repaid. 19 The 3 month time limits in each of these sections, expired on 3 December 2007, the prospectus having been lodged with ASIC on 3 September 2007. Purported compliance was achieved a day late on 4 December 2007. 20 Section 1322 CA relevantly provides: (4) Subject to the following provisions of this section but without limiting the generality of any other provision of this Act, the Court, may, on application by any interested person, make all or any of the following orders, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as the Court imposes: (a) an order declaring that any act, matter or thing purporting to have been done, or any proceeding purporting to have been instituted or taken, under this Act or in relation to a corporation is not invalid by reason of any contravention of a provision of this Act or a provision of the constitution of a corporation; … (d) an order extending the period for doing any act, matter or thing or instituting or taking any proceeding under this Act or in relation to a corporation (including an order extending a period where the period concerned ended before the application for the order was made) or abridging the period for doing such an act, matter or thing or instituting or taking such a proceeding; and may make such consequential or ancillary orders as the Court thinks fit. … (6) The Court must not make an order under this section unless it is satisfied: (a) in the case of an order referred to in paragraph (4)(a): (i) that the act, matter or thing, or the proceeding, referred to in that paragraph is essentially of a procedural nature; (ii) that the person or persons concerned in or party to the contravention or failure acted honestly; or (iii) that it is just and equitable that the order be made: … (c) in every case - that no substantial injustice has been or is likely to be caused to any person. 21 A liberal construction is given to s 1322 (per Lindgren J at [27] in Insurance Australia Group Ltd 21 ACLC 1,107 above and as adopted by French J in Re Wave Capital Ltd (2003) 21 ACLC 1,995 at [30]). Using this approach, it follows that s 1322(4)(d) enables the Court to extend the time periods referred to above in ss 723 and 724 even though no absolute positive obligation to make the application for listing and to achieve quotation on the ASX is spelt out in the time periods designated in those sections. 22 In addition to the statutory requirements to be taken into account by the Court pursuant to subs (6) of s 1322, there is, as with the exercise of any discretion, a requirement to exercise it judicially having regard to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the specific provisions and the general legislative framework. As French J observed in Wave Capital 21 ACLC at [29]: Like the discretion to validate invalid share issues under s 254E, the power conferred by s 1322 must be exercised having regard to the requirements of the purposes of the Corporations Act and any other relevant statutes whose application may be in issue. It must also be exercised having regard to the interest of all parties affected and the public interest in ensuring compliance with statute law and company constitutions. Evidence of a blatant disregard of the provisions of the Act or the constitution of the company may lead to refusal of relief. 23 As well as the extension of time sought by Laserbond, it also seeks relief to validate the issue of shares that has already taken place. The reason for this is to put beyond doubt the legitimacy of that issue given that since 4 December 2007, the issue will have been regarded as having been void pursuant to the effect of s 723(3) CA. For those reasons, Lee J in Re Golden Gate Petroleum Ltd (2004) 50 ACSR 659 at [33] granted relief validating an issue as did French J in Re Onslow Salt Pty Ltd (2003) 198 ALR 344 at [31]. 24 Section 254E CA provides: (1) On application by a company, a shareholder, a creditor or any other person whose interests have been or may be affected, the Court may make an order validating or confirming the terms of a purported issue of shares if: (a) the issue is or may be invalid for any reason; or (b) the terms of the issue are inconsistent with or not authorised by: (i) this Act; or (ii) another law of a State or Territory; or (iii) the company's constitution (if any). (2) On lodgement of a copy of the order with ASIC, the order has effect from the time of the purported issue. 25 In the circumstances of this case there is no doubt that the company has brought an application in relation to a purported issue of shares which may be invalid for any reason. In construing the meaning of 'invalid' in s 254E, the liberal approach is again applied. This is because of the remedial purpose behind the section and thus requires that 'invalid' includes 'void'. This is consistent with the approach taken in the cases on which Austin J commented in Howard v Mechtler (1999) 30 ACSR 434 at [47]-[48]. It was also expressly the view of Lee J in Golden Gate50 ACSR at [34] where his Honour said: I am satisfied that s 254E uses the word 'invalid' in a broad sense to encompass not only an issue of shares which is liable to be declared void under the Act but also an issue of shares which the Act stipulates to be void (see : Swan Brewery Co Ltd (No 2) (1976) 3 ACLC 168 per Gillard J at 171-2; cf Harman v Energy Research Group Australia Limited [1986] WAR 123 per Brinsden J at 127). 26 However, the earlier observations (at 22) above about the exercise of discretion in relation to s 1322 apply equally to s 254B.

SECTION 1322(4)(a) 27 It is not possible to validate the issue of the options issued under the prospectus by the means of s 254E as that section applies only in relation to shares. Accordingly, Laserbond has sought relief pursuant to s 1322(4)(a) in relation to the options referred to in the prospectus. Section 1322(4)(a) has been set out above. It is clear once again that s 1322(4)(a) is to be given a beneficial or liberal construction. As was observed by Young J in NRMA Ltd v Gould (1995) 18 ACSR 290 at [20], a contravention should be construed in a very wide sense. 28 However, the Court should not make an order pursuant to s 1322 unless it is satisfied on one or more of the following (to be read disjunctively): (a) that the act, matter or thing, or the proceeding, referred to in that paragraph is essentially of a procedural nature; (b) that the person or persons concerned in or party to the contravention or failure acted honestly; or (c) that it is just and equitable that the order be made. 29 An issue of options can be an act, matter or thing purported to have been done in relation to Laserbond. That expression is in wide terms. As there has been non-compliance with ss 723 and 724, that would constitute (giving a wide meaning to the phrase 'any contravention of a provision of this Act') such a contravention. 30 But the Court is required to be satisfied of one or more of the grounds in (a), (b) or (c). I will now consider that requirement.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF DELAY 31 In practical terms the relevant delay was of one day only and was of an administrative nature. I accept Laserbond's submission that there can be no suggestion of any blatant disregard for the terms of the relevant legislation or the bodies charged with its implementation. There has certainly been no deliberate delay, let alone any motive for delay on the part of Laserbond. Clearly Laserbond was keen to effect the admission to the ASX. The delay concerned occurred because of the delay in receiving documents from the share registry. Laserbond had been aware of the deadline and had been pressing for the documents from the share registry but it was not aware of the consequences of not meeting the deadline. Obviously, had it been aware of the seriousness of the consequences, the steps taken to ensure compliance may have been more vigorously pursued at an earlier date with the result that the delay of a day would probably not have occurred. 32 Insofar as relief under s 1322 CA is concerned, the interests of the applicants for shares are also to be considered. As Lindgren J concluded in Re NuSep Ltd [2007] FCA 613 at [33]: … it would fulfil the expectations of shareholders and optionholders that their shares and options be admitted to quotation. 33 I am mindful that subs 1322(6)(c) provides that the Court should not make an order for extension if any substantial injustice has been or is likely to be caused to any person. On the evidence before me, that matter has been specifically addressed. The Chairman of Laserbond has turned his mind to the question and deposes to the fact that he is unaware of any person who would be adversely affected in any way if the orders which are sought were made. I am equally unable to discern any adverse effect of making the orders but, in any event, if there is an unforeseen adverse impact the urgent liberty to apply provision is likely to respond to that seemingly unlikely prospect. As against that, many investors stand to be disappointed or prejudiced if the relief is not granted. 34 Again, in relation to the validation relief under s 254E CA I am conscious that an underlying purpose of the provisions set out in s 723 and s 724 CA is to ensure that where people apply for securities on the basis that they will be quoted on a stock exchange, they have the right to withdraw their application if there is a delay in pursuing that listing. If prompt application for admission is not made and prompt admission is not obtained within the timeframes contemplated by the legislation and by the arrangements between the parties, there is a provision which ensures that there is adequate protection provided to those who have made a commitment on the assumption of prompt listing. 35 Again, however, it seems to me that making the orders sought rather than defeating the purpose of the provisions is more likely to advance than stop it and the interests of the parties affected by the relevant issues will be better protected by granting the relief which is sought. 36 Given all those circumstances I consider I should exercise a discretion to grant the relief which is sought both in connection with the extension of time and the validation. 37 Accordingly on 12 December 2007 when this matter was listed before me I made the following orders indicating that brief reasons (these being those reasons) would follow shortly:

The period set out in sub-sections 723(3)(b) and 724(1)(b)(ii) of the Corporations Act for the admission to quotation by the ASX Limited ("ASX") of securities issued pursuant to the Prospectus dated 3 September 2007 (the "Prospectus") be extended to 5 business days after the making of this order.
Subject to the Applicant's securities being admitted to quotation by the ASX within 5 business days after the making of this order: (a) Pursuant to section 254E of the Corporations Act, the issue of shares by the Applicant pursuant to the Prospectus is hereby validated and confirmed. (b) Pursuant to section 1322(4)(a) of the Corporations Act, the issue of options by the Applicant pursuant to the Prospectus is not invalid by reason of any contravention of section 723 or section 724 of the Corporations Act.
The Applicant forthwith lodge a copy of these orders with the Australian Securities & Investments Commission.
Upon the Applicant becoming listed on the ASX, the Applicant make an announcement to the ASX disclosing the terms of these orders.
The Applicant and all other interested or affected parties have liberty to apply to vary these orders upon first giving 24 hours prior written notice. I certify that the preceding thirty-seven (37) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice McKerracher.

Solicitor for the Applicant: Fairweather & Lemonis

Corporations Act 2001(Cth)ss 254E, 723(3), 723(3)(b), 724(1)(b), 724(1)(b)(ii), 724(2), 1322(4)(a)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (7 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (3)