REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 On 9 September 2014, I delivered Reasons for Judgment (Traxys Europe SA v Balaji Coke Industry Pvt Ltd (No 5) [2014] FCA 976) (Traxys No 5) which dealt with all outstanding issues in this proceeding. On that day, I made orders requiring the parties to address the form of final orders which should be made in order to give effect to Traxys No 5.
2 On 10 September 2014, the applicant submitted a draft of the declaration and orders which it proposed. The respondents were required to indicate their attitude to the applicant's draft by 16 September 2014. None of the respondents has done so. Nor have any of the respondents brought forward any alternative set of orders.
3 The applicant's proposed declaration and orders address most of the matters required to be addressed. I intend to make orders substantially in accordance with the applicant's draft. Those orders are largely self-explanatory.
4 By way of explanation of the orders which I propose to make, I wish to make a few observations about some specific matters. Those matters are:
(a) Whether the Court should make a declaration that the share sale transaction between the first respondent and third respondent embodied in the agreement dated 16 July 2011 entered into by those parties whereby the first respondent apparently sold all of its shares in the second respondent to the third respondent is a sham. At [132] of Traxys No 5, I said that such a declaration should be made. I adhere to that view. I propose to make a declaration substantially in the terms sought by the applicant.
(b) Orders 2 to 7 in the applicant's draft are essentially the same as the orders sought in its Originating Application relating to the appointment of receivers to the shares held by the first respondent in the second respondent. I propose to make orders substantially in accordance with those paragraphs.
(c) For the same reasons as I continued the Freezing Order after final judgment in Coeclerici Asia (Pte) Ltd v Gujarat NRE Coke Limited [2013] FCA 882 (as to which, see [113] and [114]), I propose to leave the Freezing Order in this case in place until further order of the Court.
(d) I have also provided that the Receivers may be paid their reasonable costs and disbursements up to the point in time when a sale of the shares is completed or the second respondent is wound up before paying funds in their hands into Court provided that they have first obtained the approval of the Court to the amount thereof.
(e) I will also grant liberty to apply to all parties and to the Receivers. It is intended that this liberty may be exercised if the Court needs to determine any issue that may arise in respect of the sale of the shares in the second respondent or the winding up of the second respondent or in respect of the Freezing Orders.
5 When the matter was called on for judgment this morning, each of the applicant and the first respondent was represented by its solicitor. There was no appearance either by or on behalf of the second respondent or the third respondent.
6 The solicitor for the applicant informed that he had only recently discovered that, in December 2013, Booyan had been deregistered by ASIC. He then applied to have Booyan reinstated and to dispense with r 2.8(3) of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 in order to enable orders to be made today.
7 I acceded to that application and made orders accordingly. Those orders were added to the declaration and orders which I had otherwise intended to make.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Foster.