Australian Leaders Fund Ltd v Equity Trustees Ltd, in the matter of Australian Leaders Fund Ltd
Case
•
[2021] FCA 88
•2 February 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Australian Leaders Fund Ltd v Equity Trustees Ltd, in the matter of Australian Leaders Fund Ltd [2021] FCA 88
[2021] FCA 88
2 February 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Australian Leaders Fund Ltd v Equity Trustees Ltd, in the matter of Australian Leaders Fund Ltd, the Federal Court of Australia was asked to order the convening of a meeting of shareholders of Australian Leaders Fund Limited (ALF) for the purpose of considering and, if thought fit, agreeing to a scheme of arrangement between ALF and its shareholders. The scheme involved the cancellation of shares held by the scheme company's creditors. The legal issues before the court included the application of certain regulations to the scheme meeting and whether the creditors would be prejudiced by the adoption of the scheme.
The court found that due to the identified lacuna in the regulations and the fact that the scheme would not take effect without a further order of the court approving the scheme, it was appropriate to order that Rule 2.15 of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 would not apply to the scheme meeting. The court cited several authorities to support its decision, finding that it had become common to dispense with compliance with Rule 2.15 on the basis that it is unnecessary. The court was satisfied that creditors were not likely to be prejudiced by the adoption of the scheme.
The court made orders convening the scheme meeting, specifying the time, date, and chairperson for the meeting, and directing the manner in which the scheme booklet and other documents would be dispatched to shareholders. The court also ordered that Rule 2.15 of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 would not apply to the scheme meeting and that the proceeding be stood over for the hearing of any application to approve the scheme.
The court found that due to the identified lacuna in the regulations and the fact that the scheme would not take effect without a further order of the court approving the scheme, it was appropriate to order that Rule 2.15 of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 would not apply to the scheme meeting. The court cited several authorities to support its decision, finding that it had become common to dispense with compliance with Rule 2.15 on the basis that it is unnecessary. The court was satisfied that creditors were not likely to be prejudiced by the adoption of the scheme.
The court made orders convening the scheme meeting, specifying the time, date, and chairperson for the meeting, and directing the manner in which the scheme booklet and other documents would be dispatched to shareholders. The court also ordered that Rule 2.15 of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 would not apply to the scheme meeting and that the proceeding be stood over for the hearing of any application to approve the scheme.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Corporate Law & Governance
-
Insolvency Law
Legal Concepts
-
Scheme of Arrangement
-
Meeting of Shareholders
-
Share Cancellation
-
Managed Investment Scheme
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Platinum Asia Investments Limited, in the matter of Platinum Asia Investments Limited [2025] FCA 746
Cases Citing This Decision
182
Golden Circle Limited, Re
[2008] QSC 298
In the matter of Bigtincan Holdings Limited
[2025] NSWSC 140
In the matter of Bigtincan Holdings Limited
[2025] NSWSC 140
Cases Cited
17
Statutory Material Cited
4
Watermark Market Neutral Fund Limited v Equity Trustees Limited, in the matter of Watermark Market Neutral Fund Limited
[2019] FCA 315
Watermark Global Leaders Fund Limited v Equity Trustees Limited, in the matter of Watermark Global Leaders Fund Limited
[2019] FCA 316
Re Ellerston Global Investments Ltd
[2020] NSWSC 879