1 These reasons are the reasons why I made an order on 15 September 2008 approving a scheme of arrangement under s 411 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act), and a declaration associated with that order.
2 On 7 August 2008 I had ordered under s 411(1) of the Act that the plaintiff, Independent Practitioner Network Ltd (IPN), convene a meeting of the holders of ordinary shares in IPN excluding Sonic Healthcare Ltd (Sonic) (IPN Shareholders) to be held on 11 September 2008 for the purpose of their considering and, if thought fit, agreeing to a scheme of arrangement (with or without modification) between IPN and the IPN Shareholders (Scheme). As well, I approved the draft explanatory statement to be given by IPN to the IPN Shareholders.
3 My reasons for the making of those orders of 7 August are found in Re Independent Practitioner Network Ltd [2008] FCA 1229. I will take those earlier reasons as read. They form part of my present reasons. I will use the forms of abbreviation that I used in them.
4 The Scheme Meeting was held on 11 September 2008. By statutory majorities satisfying the requirements of s 411(4)(a) of the Act, the IPN Shareholders agreed to the Scheme.
5 Section 411(6) of the Act provides, relevantly, that the Court may grant its approval to an arrangement subject to such alterations as it thinks just. At the second court hearing IPN asked that I approve the Scheme subject to certain alterations. The purpose of the alterations was to substitute for Sonic a wholly owned subsidiary of Sonic as the entity that would take title to the IPN shares and pay the Scheme Consideration.
6 I was told that Sonic had come to the view that it would be preferable for taxation reasons that the acquisition be by the subsidiary, which is incorporated in New Zealand, Sonic Healthcare (New Zealand) Limited. The substitution was to be effected by alterations to the Scheme which would introduce "Sonic Purchaser" as a new defined term, and change the reference from "Sonic" to "Sonic Purchaser" in respect of certain clauses in the Scheme . The term "Sonic Purchaser" would be defined as Sonic or the New Zealand subsidiary if Sonic should nominate it prior to 8.00 am on the "Implementation Date" identified in the Scheme (in the events that happened, the Implementation Date was 30 September 2008).
7 The proposed change of transferee had implications for a Deed Poll dated 6 August 2008 that Sonic had executed in favour of each "Scheme Participant" (being each IPN Shareholder as at the "Record Date" other than Sonic). By the Deed Poll, Sonic had undertaken to each Scheme Participant to comply with Sonic's obligations under the Scheme, and, in particular, to provide the consideration due to the Scheme Participant. Clause 7.1 of the Deed Poll provided that the Deed Poll might be varied by Sonic only if (a) the variation was agreed to by IPN, and (b) the Court indicated the amendment would not, of itself, preclude approval of the Scheme. By cl 7.1, Sonic also undertook, in order to give effect to any such amendment, to enter into a further deed poll in favour of the Scheme Participant giving effect to the amendment.
8 On 15 September 2008, IPN and Sonic entered into an "amendment agreement" by which it was agreed that the Scheme and the Deed Poll be amended. This satisfied condition (a) in cl 7.1 of the Deed Poll. There was included in the orders that IPN sought at the second court hearing a declaration (which, in the event, I made) satisfying condition (b) in cl 7.1 of the Deed Poll.
9 By a Supplementary Deed Poll dated 15 September 2008 executed by Sonic, the Deed Poll was amended, subject to (a) the Court's having indicated that the amendments would not of themselves preclude approval of the Scheme, and (b) the Court's granting approval of the Scheme as altered. By the Deed Poll as amended, Sonic undertook to each Scheme Participant to procure that the Sonic Purchaser would comply with its obligations under the Scheme and provide the Scheme Consideration. It will be noted that the Deed Poll as so amended still expressed obligations undertaken by Sonic itself in favour of each Scheme Participant.
10 The power to approve subject to alterations was introduced in the form of s 181(3) of the Uniform Companies Acts of 1961-1962. The provision was retained in s 315(6) of the Companies Code and in s 411(6) of the Act.
11 The authorities contain little discussion of the provision. Properly, they do not purport to limit the circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the Court to exercise the power.
12 In Re Evandale Estates Ltd (Supreme Court of Victoria, June 1962, unreported), Adam J directed an amendment as follows:
The adoption and coming into operation of this Scheme of Arrangement shall for the purpose of any Statute of Limitations be an acknowledgement.
13 In Re H Craig Pty Ltd (1971-1976) CLC 40-026, Mitchell J approved of a scheme subject to several minor alterations.
14 In Re Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (2002) 43 ACSR 601, Barrett J approved a scheme subject to alterations which his Honour described as "peripheral" (at [21]). His Honour stated that the scheme in respect of which approval was sought differed in certain respects from the form of scheme that had been sent to members in accordance with the orders of the court previously made. Barrett J added (at [21]):
It is clear, however, that the changes or differences are of a minor and technical kind and that their effect is to improve the smooth working of the scheme.
15 In Re Investorinfo Limited [2005] FCA 1848, Gyles J approved a scheme subject to an alteration that was designed to overcome what his Honour described as "a technicality arising from the drafting of the scheme" (at [8]).
16 I do not purport to define or circumscribe the circumstances in which the Court may properly exercise the discretion to approve subject to alterations. The circumstances in which the Court may be asked to exercise the power vary. For example, the purpose may be to overcome minor technical errors or oversights present in the scheme as agreed to by the shareholders (see, for example, Re H Craig Pty Ltd); to bring the scheme as agreed to by them into line with the explanatory statement that was sent to them (see, for example, Re Permanent Trustee Co Ltd); or to protect creditors (see, for example, Re Evandale Estates Ltd). The alterations may be suggested by the plaintiff or by the Court. Apparently, however, the plaintiff would be entitled, if faced with alterations on which the Court insisted but to which it did not agree, to withdraw its application for approval.
17 At least one thing is clear: the Court will not approve subject to alterations unless it is satisfied that the scheme as proposed to be altered would still have been agreed to by the requisite statutory majorities.
18 I turn now to the alterations sought in the present case. In one sense it may be suggested that the change in the identity of the acquiring entity is fundamental. In the circumstances of the present case, however, I do not think it is.
19 The acquiring entity was not, of course, a party to the Scheme. The parties to the Scheme were IPN and the Scheme Participants. IPN requested approval subject to alterations which IPN advanced in the interests of Sonic.
20 I could see no disadvantage to Scheme Participants in the substitution of the wholly owned Sonic subsidiary as the recipient of their shares in IPN. It was not as if the original consideration was or included the issue of shares in Sonic which was to be changed to the issue of shares in the Sonic subsidiary. On the contrary, the consideration was and remained wholly cash.
21 In relation to the performance risk to the Scheme Participants, it should be noted that:
(a) under the Deed Poll as amended Sonic remains liable in personam to them to ensure that the Sonic Purchaser performed its payment obligations;
(b) the evidence showed that the New Zealand subsidiary was a party to the borrowing facility intended to fund the acquisition; and
(c) the Scheme contained a Quistclose trust mechanism (see Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd [1970] AC 567) pursuant to which the aggregate Scheme Consideration was to be deposited into an account nominated by IPN to be held by IPN as trustee for, and distributed by it to, the Scheme Participants according to their respective entitlements, and title to the shares was not to pass until the aggregate Scheme consideration was so deposited (cll 4.3 - 4.5 and 5.1 of the Scheme).
22 The substance of the Scheme, namely a transfer of IPN shares to or at the direction of Sonic immediately following payment by the acquirer of the aggregate Scheme Consideration remained unchanged.
23 If the IPN Shareholders had been asked at the Scheme Meeting whether they had any objection, in the above circumstances, to title to the IPN shares being transferred to the Sonic subsidiary rather than to Sonic itself, they would certainly have said "no".
24 The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) had issued a letter providing evidence of the kind contemplated by s 411(17) of the Act. ASIC's letter took the alterations into account.
25 It seemed to me that the Scheme should be approved subject to the alterations.
26 For the above reasons I made the orders on 15 September 2008.
I certify that the preceding twenty-six (26) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Lindgren.