In the matter of Moula Money Pty Limited

[2023] NSWSC 1434

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

In the matter of Moula Money Pty Limited [2023] NSWSC 1434

Hearing dates:

25 May 2023

Date of orders:

24 November 2023

Decision date:

24 November 2023

Jurisdiction:

Equity - Corporations List

Before:

Williams J

Decision:

See conclusion at [237]–[238] below.

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE — Preliminary discovery — Where plaintiff may be entitled to make claims for relief against the first and second defendants — Where reasonable enquiries made by plaintiff of defendants — Where plaintiff possesses extensive information as to potential claims but requires further information to decide whether to commence proceedings — Where proposed categories of preliminary discovery also extensive — Preliminary discovery granted in respect of three of nine categories sought against first defendant — Preliminary discovery granted in respect of one of three categories sought against second defendant

CORPORATIONS — Management and administration — Application to inspect books — Onus of demonstrating good faith and proper purpose not met by plaintiff in respect of documents not reasonably required for plaintiff’s decision to commence proceedings — Where no other purpose for proposed inspection identified — Application dismissed

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 79, 180, 181, 181(1), 182, 182(2), 183, 183(2), 232, 233, 237, 247A, 247B, 1317H

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 136

Cases Cited:

Enares Pty Ltd v Nimble Money Ltd (2022) 294 FCR 31; [2022] FCAFC 126

In the matter of Sirrah Pty Limited [2017] NSWSC 1683

Munstermann v Rayward; Rayward v Munstermann [2017] NSWSC 133

O’Connor v O’Connor [2018] NSWCA 214

Racing New South Wales v Racing Victoria Limited (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 576

The Age Company Ltd v Liu (2013) 82 NSWLR 268; (2013) 272 FLR 426; (2013) 296 ALR 186; [2013] NSWCA 26

Tzavaras v Tzavaras & Sons Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCA 168

Texts Cited:

N/A

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Enares Pty Ltd (ACN 001 060 359) (Plaintiff)
Moula Money Pty Limited (ACN 164 875 325) (First Defendant)
Beat Services Pty Ltd (ACN 121 451 803) (Second Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
Ms LRP Rich (Plaintiff)
Mr JC Hewitt SC (First Defendant)
Mr MI Borsky KC with Mr K Raghavan (Second Defendant)

Solicitors:
Baker McKenzie (Plaintiff)
MinterEllison (First Defendant)
Arnold Bloch Leibler (Second Defendant)

File Number(s):

2022/334868

Publication restriction:

N/A

Judgment

Introduction

1. The first defendant—Moula Money Pty Limited (ACN 164 875 325) (Moula)—is primarily engaged in the business of making loans to small businesses on terms of one to two years.

2. The plaintiff—Enares Pty Ltd (ACN 001 060 359) (Enares)—is a minority shareholder in Moula.

3. The second defendant—Beat Services Pty Ltd (ACN 121 451 803) (Beat)—is also a shareholder in Moula. Beat presently holds approximately 53.87 per cent of the shares in Moula.

4. In these proceedings, Enares seeks:

1. orders under rule 5.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR) for preliminary discovery of nine categories of documents by Moula and three categories of documents by Beat relating to claims for relief that Enares submits that it may be entitled to make against Moula and Beat, and in respect of which Enares contends that it has been unable to obtain sufficient information to decide whether or not to commence proceedings; and

2. orders under ss 247A and 247B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) authorising its solicitors to inspect and copy the books of Moula (being the books comprising the nine categories of documents that are the subject of the preliminary discovery application against Moula), and to disclose those books to specified persons and to use them for specified purposes.

5. For the reasons that follow, I have determined that there should be an order against Moula for preliminary discovery of the documents in categories 1, [1] 3, and 5, that there should be an order against Beat for preliminary discovery of the documents sought in category 11, [2] and that the proceedings should otherwise be dismissed.

Preliminary discovery

1. Subject to the conditions set out in [182] below.

2. Subject to the conditions set out in [222] below.

Applicable principles

6. The terms of rule 5.3 of the UCPR, and the principles that apply to the exercise of the Court’s power to order preliminary discovery under that rule, were recently summarised by Ball J in Racing New South Wales v Racing Victoria Limited (No 2) [3] with reference to authority, including the judgment of the Court of Appeal in O’Connor v O’Connor. [4] I gratefully adopt his Honour’s summary, which it is convenient to set out here in full (emphasis in original): [5]

   3. [2023] NSWSC 576 (Racing New South Wales).

   4. [2018] NSWCA 214 (O’Connor).

   5. Racing New South Wales at [29]–[37].

“29 Rule 5.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR) provides:

(1)   If it appears to the court that—

(a)   the applicant may be entitled to make a claim for relief from the court against a person (the prospective defendant) but, having made reasonable inquiries, is unable to obtain sufficient information to decide whether or not to commence proceedings against the prospective defendant, and

(b)   the prospective defendant may have or have had possession of a document or thing that can assist in determining whether or not the applicant is entitled to make such a claim for relief, and

(c)   inspection of such a document would assist the applicant to make the decision concerned,

the court may order that the prospective defendant must give discovery to the applicant of all documents that are or have been in the person’s possession and that relate to the question of whether or not the applicant is entitled to make a claim for relief.

…

30    As Simpson AJA explained in O’Connor v O’Connor [2018] NSWCA 214, the threshold requirements set out in rule 5.3 are low:

[23]    As was explicitly accepted on behalf of the respondents, the threshold set by the Rule is low: it must appear to the court that an applicant may be entitled to make a claim for relief, and that a prospective defendant may have or have had possession of relevant documents or things, and that inspection would assist the applicant to decide whether to commence proceedings.

…

[30]    It may be emphasised that there is no requirement that an applicant for preliminary discovery establish even a prima facie case for relief; nor is it necessary that an applicant specify with precision the cause of action proposed, although it will be necessary, in order to make it ‘appear to the court’ the applicant ‘may be entitled to make a claim for relief’ that the applicant provide some particularisation of the nature of the relief in contemplation. That is so, not only to enable the court to form a view about whether the applicant may be entitled to make a claim for relief, but also to enable the prospective defendant, if an order is made, to determine which, if any, documents in possession are to be discovered.

31    Similarly, in Hatfield v TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd (2010) 77 NSWLR 506; [2010] NSWCA 69 at [47]-[52], McColl JA said (citations removed):

First, ‘[i]n order for it to “appear” to the Court that the applicant “may be entitled” to make a claim for relief, it is not necessary for the applicant to show a prima facie or pleadable case’.

Secondly, while ‘the mere assertion of a case is insufficient … [i]t will be sufficient if there is reasonable cause to believe that the applicant may have a right of action against the respondent resting on some recognised legal ground’.

…

… the use of the word ‘may’ indicates the Court does not have to reach ‘a firm view that there is a right to relief’.

Fifthly, ‘the question posed by [r 5.3(1)(a)] … is not whether the applicant has sufficient information to decide if a cause of action is available against the prospective respondent [but] … whether the applicant has sufficient information to make a decision whether to commence proceedings in the court. Accordingly, an applicant for preliminary discovery may be entitled to discovery in order to determine what defences are available to the respondent and the possible strength of those defences’. Thus application of the rule will not be precluded by the fact that the applicant already has available evidence establishing a prima facie case for the granting of relief, as there might be matters of defence which could defeat a prima facie case.

Sixthly, … ‘the rule is to be beneficially construed, given the fullest scope that its language will reasonably allow, with the proper brake on any excesses lying in the discretion of the court, exercised in the particular circumstances of each case’.

32    What amounts to ‘reasonable enquiries’ is a question of fact to be determined having regard to all the relevant circumstances. As McDougall J said in Steffen v ANZ Banking Group Ltd [2009] NSWSC 666 at [15]:

What are ‘reasonable inquiries’ is a question of fact, to be considered in all the circumstances of the particular case. Clearly, the court is entitled to take into account whether there are other means of obtaining the information; and, equally clearly, the cost and delay of resorting to those alternative means is also relevant. As I said in Sinopharm at [32], ‘[w]hat is reasonable cannot be determined in some a priori fashion. The determination must take into account the facts of the particular case including, so far as those facts demonstrate it, the relationship (if any) between the applicant and the prospective defendant’. It would also be relevant to take into account the utility (or, to put it another way, uncertainty) of obtaining the necessary information by other means.

33    Having made those enquiries, the question is what information the applicant has and what additional information it reasonably needs to make a decision. As White J explained in Morton v Nylex Ltd [2007] NSWSC 562 at [33] (citations omitted):

…The third requirement of r 5.3(1)(a) requires an objective assessment of the information already possessed by the plaintiffs to determine whether that information is sufficient for such a decision to be made. The question is whether the applicant has insufficient information to be able to decide whether to institute proceedings; not merely to establish a cause of action. Hence, an applicant may be entitled to preliminary discovery of documents relevant to available defences, or the extent of apprehended breaches, or the likely quantum of damages, as well as of documents which may establish whether there is a cause of action. However, unless the applicant is lacking something reasonably necessary to make a decision whether to institute proceedings, he or she is not entitled to preliminary discovery. An applicant must disclose what information he or she already has relevant to making such a decision, and identify what information is lacking. Preliminary discovery cannot be used to build up a case which an applicant has already decided, or could decide, to bring.

34    In Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Evtain Group Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 220 at [43]ff (Tabcorp), Stevenson J suggested that it follows from this passage that, if the Court is satisfied that the plaintiff has sufficient information to plead one cause of action, it is not entitled to information in relation to another:

As Dr Higgins accepted, the question is whether Tabcorp already has sufficient information to decide ‘whether to commence, not what to commence’ such that if Tabcorp has sufficient information to commence proceedings for misleading or deceptive conduct, it does not matter whether it also has sufficient information to commence proceedings for unlawful conspiracy.

35    Two points should be made about these last two decisions. First, I do not read White J’s judgment in Morton v Nylex Ltd as saying that the test imposed by UCPR r 5.3(1)(a) is a purely objective test. It is the plaintiff who makes the decision whether to commence proceedings and it is for the plaintiff to identify the claim for relief it is considering bringing and the additional information it says it needs to decide whether to bring those proceedings. The question for the Court is whether there is a reasonable basis for thinking that the plaintiff may be entitled to make a claim for relief of that type and, if so, whether the information the plaintiff says it lacks is reasonably necessary to make a decision on whether to bring such a claim.

36    Second, the question is whether objectively the plaintiff has sufficient information to bring proceedings, not whether it has sufficient information to plead a particular cause of action. Often, the answer to the first question will follow from the answer to the second. But it need not. To the extent that the plaintiffs made a concession in Tabcorp to the contrary, in my opinion that concession was wrongly made. I return to this point below.

37    One matter relevant to the exercise of the Court’s discretion is the apparent strength or weakness of the applicant’s case. As Sackville AJA explained in Hatfield at [165]:

That the appellant’s chances of obtaining an interlocutory injunction are extremely low or remote is, in my opinion, a powerful consideration militating against exercise in her favour of the discretion conferred by r 5.3. There would be little point in ordering the respondents to give preliminary discovery of the material sought by the appellant if she stands little or no chance, in any event, of obtaining injunctive relief.”

7. Although rule 5.3 sets a low threshold for establishing that an applicant for preliminary discovery may be entitled to make a claim for relief, a potential claim that is so weak as to be untenable or unarguable will not suffice. [6] However, the Court does not embark upon an examination of the merits of the applicant’s potential claim. [7]

   6. O’Connor at [70] (Simpson AJA, McColl and Macfarlan JJA agreeing).

   7. The Age Company Ltd v Liu (2013) 82 NSWLR 268; (2013) 272 FLR 426; (2013) 296 ALR 186; [2013] NSWCA 26 at [102]–[105] (Bathurst CJ, Beazley and McColl JJA agreeing).

Introductory observations

8. Enares contends that it may be entitled to make:

1. a claim for leave under s 237 of the Corporations Act to commence proceedings on behalf of Moula against Beat for relief in respect of Beat’s alleged accessorial liability for losses allegedly suffered by Moula as a result of breaches of duties owed to Moula by Beat’s nominee director on the Moula board of directors, Mr Sherman Ma, in relation to equity investment proposals made by Beat, and competing proposals made by other potential investors, during the period from about March 2021 to June 2021;

2. claims for relief against Moula and Beat for alleged breaches of the shareholders agreement between Moula and its shareholders, and for alleged breaches of a convertible note deed pursuant to which Moula issued convertible notes to Enares and other noteholders in 2020; and

3. claims against Moula and Beat for relief under ss 232 and 233 of the Corporations Act in respect of alleged oppression: (a) in the conduct of the affairs of Moula in connection with the treatment of the equity investment proposals referred to above during the period from about March 2021 to June 2021; (b) in the conduct of the affairs of Moula generally since mid-2021, which Enares contends has been dominated by a dispute between Beat and the founding shareholders of Moula and by proposals formulated by them to separate their respective interests; and (c) in the conduct of the affairs of Moula in connection with those proposals.

9. On 8 March 2023, Enares filed Points of Claim in these proceedings which contain more than 100 paragraphs of positive assertions of facts, matters and events, and allegations of wrongdoing, that form the foundation of Enares’ articulation of the claims that it says it may be entitled to make against Moula and Beat. I accept Moula’s submission that this, by itself, raises a real question about whether Enares reasonably needs any more information to decide whether to commence proceedings. However, that does not absolve the Court from the requirement to assess the substance of the information that Enares already has, and to consider whether it may be entitled to make a claim for relief against Moula and/or Beat, whether it reasonably needs any or all of the further documents in respect of which it seeks preliminary discovery orders against Moula and Beat in order to decide whether to commence proceedings, whether Moula and/or Beat may have those documents, and whether inspection of those documents would assist Enares to decide whether to commence proceedings.

10. The information that is already in the possession of Enares is extensive. At the hearing, Enares read three affidavits of Mr James Thompson [8] —a director and company secretary of Enares—and tendered approximately 2,000 pages of Moula Board meeting minutes, shareholder updates, notices of meeting and explanatory memoranda, financial records, and other documents already in the possession of Enares. That evidence is summarised below, as a record of the substance of the information already available to Enares.

    8. Affidavit in Support of Originating Process affirmed on or about 8 November 2022 (the First Thompson Affidavit); further affidavit affirmed on 19 December 2022 (the Second Thompson Affidavit); affidavit affirmed on 31 March 2023 (the Third Thompson Affidavit).

11. Throughout the summary of the evidence below, I have referenced the key sources of the information referred to, without endeavouring to reference every source. I have also referenced the Points of Claim on the assumption that, although the Points of Claim are not verified, Enares and its solicitors have taken care to ensure that information available to them provides a proper basis for each allegation in the Points of Claim. Those allegations are relevant for the purpose of determining Enares’ preliminary discovery application, even where they are disputed in the defendants’ Points of Defence, or in the defendants’ evidence and submissions.

12. For the reasons explained above, the summary of evidence should not be understood as findings of fact.

Summary of evidence

13. Moula is a private company that was incorporated on 18 July 2013. [9]

    9. Points of Claim, paragraph 2; Company Extract (Exhibit 1, pp 1575–1605).

14. The shareholders of Moula at the time of its incorporation were Auor Pty Limited (formerly known as Adansa Pty Limited) (Auor), Bazkat Pty Limited (Bazkat) and Mr Piers Paul Moller (together, the Founders). [10]

    10. Points of Claim, paragraph 5.

15. The directors of Moula at the time of its incorporation were Mr Aris Allegos (nominated by Auor) and Mr Andrew Watt (nominated by Bazkat). Mr Allegos served as the Chief Executive Officer of Moula until early 2023. Mr Watt was, and remains, the Chief Operating Officer of Moula. [11]

    11. Points of Claim, paragraphs 6–7; Company Extract (Exhibit 1, pp 1575–1605).

16. Mr Thompson has given evidence that Moula is in the business of making small business loans to Australian businesses in the amount of between $5,000 and $250,000 on terms of between about 12 and 24 months. In late 2019, Moula established a business-to-business point of sale finance offering that businesses can use to pay online, instore or by invoice, with three months interest free. [12] These two lines of Moula’s business are referred to as the Term Loan Business and the Moula Pay Business, respectively.

    12. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 5.

17. On or about 29 April 2015, Moula adopted a Constitution and entered into a Shareholders Agreement with the Founders and the other shareholders. [13]

    13. Constitution (Exhibit 1, pp 174–208); Shareholders Agreement (Exhibit 1, pp 209–257); First Thompson Affidavit, paragraphs 6–7.

18. Clause 4.1 of the Constitution provides that the provisions of the Shareholders Agreement prevail to the extent of any conflict with the provisions of the Constitution, and that each Shareholder and the Company must exercise all voting and other rights and power available to that Shareholder or the Company (as the case may be) to give effect to the provision of the Shareholders Agreement. [14]

    14. Points of Claim, paragraph 11; Constitution, clause 4.1 (Exhibit 1, p 180).

13. Clause 61 of the Constitution relevantly provides:[15]

    15. Points of Claim, paragraph 11; Constitution, clause 61 (Exhibit 1, pp 197–198).

“61.1 Subject to the Shareholders Agreement, the business of the Company is managed by the Directors who may exercise all powers of the Company that this Constitution and the Corporations Act do not require to be exercised by the Company in general meeting.

61.2   A Director who has been appointed to the board by a Shareholder is not taken to be in breach of his or her fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the Company by reason only that in the performance of his or her duties and the exercise of his or her powers, he or she has regard to the interests and acts upon the wishes of that Shareholder.

61.3 Subject to the Shareholders Agreement and without limiting the generality of clause 61.1, the Directors may exercise all the powers of the Company to:

(a)   borrow money;

(b)   charge any property or business of the Company or all or any of its uncalled capital;

(c)   issue debentures or give any other security for a debt, liability or obligation of the Company or of any other person; and

(d)   guarantee or to become liable for the payment of money or the performance of any obligation by or of any other person.

61.4   Every Director and other agent or officer of the Company must:

(a)   keep secret all aspects of all transactions of the Company, except:

(i)   to the extent necessary to enable the person to perform his or her duties to the Company;

(ii)   as required by law; and

(iii)   when requested to disclose information by the Directors, to the auditors of the Company, to a general meeting of the Company or, subject to the Shareholders Agreement, to a Shareholder; and

(b)   if requested by the Directors, sign and make a declaration that he or she will not disclose or publish any aspect of any transaction of the Company.”

20. Clause 3 of the Shareholders Agreement requires each Shareholder to exercise its voting and other rights as a shareholder to give full effect to the Shareholders Agreement, and to ensure that any director appointed by that Shareholder from time to time exercises their voting rights and other powers as a director to give full effect to the Shareholders Agreement. [16]

    16. Shareholders Agreement, clause 3 (Exhibit 1, p 221).

21. Clause 4.1 of the Shareholders Agreement requires each Shareholder to exercise its rights as a Shareholder to ensure that the composition of the Board of Directors is as set out in Schedule 3 to the Shareholders Agreement. Schedule 3 relevantly provides (emphasis in original):[17]

“1.1   The Board will comprise a minimum of one and a maximum of seven Directors.

1.2   Directors will be appointed and removed as follows:

(a)   each Founder is entitled to appoint and remove, from time to time, by notice in writing to the Company, one Director nominated by it;

(b)   each Strategic Shareholder is entitled to appoint and remove, from time to time, by notice in writing to the Company, one Director nominated by it;

(c)   … each Shareholder who holds at least 20% of the Ordinary Shares (Material Shareholder) is entitled to appoint and remove, from time to time, by notice in writing to the Company, one Director nominated by it for each 20% of the Ordinary Shares held by that Material Shareholder;

…”

17. Points of Claim, paragraph 13; Shareholders Agreement clause 4.1 and Schedule 3 (exhibit 1, pp 221 and 244).

22. The term “Founder” is defined in the Shareholders Agreement as meaning Auor, Bazkat, and Mr Moller. [18]

    18. Points of Claim, paragraph 13; Shareholders Agreement, clause 1.1 (Exhibit 1, p 217); see also [13] above.

23. The term “Founder” is defined in the Shareholders Agreement as meaning Auor, Bazkat, and Mr Moller. [19]

    19. Points of Claim, paragraph 13; Shareholders Agreement, clause 1.1 (Exhibit 1, p 217); see also [13] above.

24. The term “Strategic Shareholder” is defined as meaning a Shareholder who is appointed as a “Strategic Shareholder” by “Special Majority Approval” of the shareholders. [20]

    20. Points of Claim, paragraph 13; Shareholders Agreement, clause 1.1 (Exhibit 1, p 220).

25. The term “Special Majority Approval” is defined as meaning: [21]

“(a)   in the case of a vote, resolution or consent of Shareholders, one passed or given by Shareholders who together hold more than 80% of the Shares on issue; or

(b)   in the case of a vote, resolution or consent of the Board, one passed or given by more than 80% of the members of the Board.”

21. Points of Claim, paragraph 13; Shareholders Agreement, clause 1.1 (Exhibit 1, p 220).

26. Clause 7 of the Shareholders Agreement relevantly provides that Moula must not do or commit to do a thing listed in Schedule 4 to the Shareholders Agreement without the Special Majority Approval of Shareholders. The things listed in Schedule 4 include: [22]

    22. Points of Claim, paragraph 13; Shareholders Agreement clause 7 and Schedule 4 (Exhibit 1, pp 222 and 247).

1. any “Reorganisation Event” (defined as a bonus issue of shares, a sub-division or consolidation of shares, or another reorganisation or reconstruction of share capital where Moula neither pays nor receives cash);

2. the issue of any “Equity Securities” in Moula (defined as including ordinary shares, preference shares, and convertible notes), other than an “Excluded Issue” (defined as including, relevantly, an issue of Equity Securities with the Special Majority Approval of Shareholders, an issue of ordinary shares on conversion of convertible securities, and an issue of shares under a Reorganisation Event);

3. borrowing or accepting any financial accommodation exceeding $500,000 in any 12-month period;

4. entering into, or agreement to a material amendment to, a contract or other arrangement with any director, or with an associate of any director, subject to certain exceptions that are not presently relevant; and

5. entering into, or agreeing to a material amendment to, a contract or other arrangement with a Shareholder or with an Affiliate of a Shareholder. The definition of “Affiliate” in relation to a Shareholder relevantly includes a related body corporate of the Shareholder, a company in which the Shareholder beneficially owns not less than 50 per cent of the shares, and, where the Shareholder is not a natural person, a person who “Controls” the Shareholder. [23]

   23. Points of Claim, paragraph 13; Shareholders Agreement, clause 1.1 (Exhibit 1, pp 215 and 219).

27. Clause 11.2 of the Shareholders Agreement requires the Board to make a pro rata offer to all Shareholders of “Equity Securities” that the Board resolves to issue, except under an “Excluded Issue”. As noted above, the term “Equity Securities” is defined as meaning ordinary shares, preference shares, options, convertible notes, warrants or other securities convertible into shares. The definition of “Excluded Issue” relevantly includes: [24]

“(a)   an issue of Equity Securities with the Special Majority Approval of Shareholders;

(b)   …

(c)   an issue of Ordinary Shares on conversion of Convertible Securities;

(d)   an issue of Shares under a Reorganisation Event;

…”

24. Points of Claim, paragraph 13; Shareholders Agreement clauses 11 and 1.1 (Exhibit 1, pp 217, 222–224).

28. Clause 13.1 of the Shareholders Agreement contained a “drag along” provision which provided that, if a Shareholder holding at least 70 per cent of the shares in Moula proposed to sell all of its shares to a third-party buyer, that Shareholder could require all other Shareholders to sell their shares to the proposed buyer, subject to certain conditions set out in clause 13.1. [25]

    25. Shareholders Agreement, clause 13 (Exhibit 1, pp 228–229).

29. Clause 24 of the Shareholders Agreement provides that it prevails over any inconsistent provision in the Constitution. [26]

    26. Points of Claim, paragraph 13; Shareholders Agreement, clause 24 (Exhibit 1, p 238).

30. As at 29 April 2015—being the date on which Moula adopted the Constitution and entered into the Shareholders Agreement—the Founders collectively held approximately 58.4 per cent of Moula’s issued share capital, approximately 32 per cent was held by Liberty Financial Pty Limited (Liberty Financial), and the remaining share capital was held by eight Shareholders, each of which held between 5.7 per cent and 0.3 per cent. [27]

    27. Shareholders Agreement, Schedule 2 (Exhibit 1, p 243).

31. On or about 5 May 2015, Beat acquired shares in Moula, became a party to the Shareholders Agreement, and caused Mr Sherman Ma to be appointed as a director of Moula. By 14 January 2020, Beat held approximately 25.45 per cent of the issued share capital of Moula. Beat held in excess of 20 per cent of the issued shares at all times thereafter. [28] At the time of his appointment as a director of Moula on 5 May 2015, Mr Ma was also a director of Beat, a director of Liberty Financial, and a director of Secure Funding Pty Limited (Secure Funding). Mr Ma remained a director of those companies at all times relevant to these proceedings. Mr Thompson has given evidence that Liberty Financial and Secure Funding provide warehouse funding to Moula under a loan facility that funds Moula’s lending business (the Loan Facility). [29]

    28. Affidavit of Molly Scott sworn on 10 March 2023, paras 3–4.

    29. Points of Claim, paragraphs 3–4, 10 and 12; Company Extracts (Exhibit 1, pp 1575–1710, 1748–1761); First Thompson Affidavit, paragraphs 8–15 and 18.

32. According to Mr Thompson’s evidence, Beat is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Hestia Holdings BV (Hestia Holdings), and Hestia Holdings is also the ultimate holding company of Liberty Financial and Secure Funding. It is not clear from Mr Thompson’s evidence and from the documents tendered in these proceedings when Beat, Liberty Financial, and Secure Funding became part of the same corporate group. Hestia Holdings was first established on 28 November 2019 and registered in the Netherlands on 5 December 2019. [30]

    30. First Thompson affidavit, paragraphs 12–14; Company Extract (Exhibit 1, pp 1748–1761).

33. Enares characterises Liberty Finance and Secure Funding as Affiliates of Beat within the meaning of the Shareholders Agreement. [31]

    31. Points of Claim, paragraph 10.

34. Mr Nathan Cher was appointed as a director of Moula on the same date as Mr Ma’s appointment on 5 May 2015. [32]

    32. Points of Claim, paragraph 4; Company Extract (Exhibit 1, pp 1575–1605).

35. Mr Christopher Ridd was appointed as a director of Moula on 14 July 2016. [33]

    33. Company Extract (Exhibit 1, pp 1575–1605).

36. On or about 18 December 2017, Enares acquired shares in Moula and became a party to the Shareholders Agreement pursuant to a Deed Poll of Accession executed by Enares on that date. [34] The directors of Enares at that time were a Mr Neil Raymond Sutton and a Mr Scott David Sutton. Mr Thompson became a director of Enares on 3 December 2021. [35]

    34. Points of Claim, paragraph 12; First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 17; Deed Poll of Accession (Exhibit 1, pp 258–259).

    35. Company Extract (Exhibit 1, pp 1711–1735).

37. On 26 August 2020, Moula executed an Unsecured Convertible Note Deed Poll in favour of the holders of convertible notes issued under that Deed Poll (the Convertible Note Deed). [36]

    36. Points of Claim, paragraph 14; First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 20; Convertible Note Deed (Exhibit 1, pp 329–406).

38. Clause 2 of the Convertible Note Deed provided that, subject to the Shareholders Agreement, the directors of Moula may create and issue unsecured convertible notes on the terms set out in Schedule 1 to persons nominated by the directors, with an aggregate value of up to $12,000,000. Clause 5 provided that Moula must only apply the proceeds received on the issue of the notes for Moula’s working capital requirements. [37]

    37. Points of Claim, paragraph 15; Convertible Note Deed (Exhibit 1, pp 329–406).

39. The total face value of notes issued under the Convertible Note Deed was $12,050,407, 39.6 per cent of which were issued to Beat (with a face value of $4,777,051) and 5.4 per cent of which were issued to Enares (with a face value of $635,145). [38] It is convenient to refer to notes issued under the Convertible Note Deed as the 2020 Notes.

    38. Points of Claim, paragraphs 14, 16 and 17; First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 21; list of subscribers for unsecured convertible notes (Exhibit 1, p 407).

40. The 2020 Notes were issued on terms that they automatically converted into shares on the “Maturity Date”, which was nine months after the issue of the first note under the Convertible Note Deed. The Convertible Note Deed contemplated that a “Subsequent Equity Round” would take place prior to the Maturity Date, the proceeds of which would fund the redemption of the 2020 Notes, except to the extent that the Noteholders had elected by written notice to convert them into shares on the date of completion of the Subsequent Equity Round. The “Subsequent Equity Round” was defined as Moula accepting investments in an aggregate amount of at least $15,000,000 for shares, with at least 50 per cent of the amount raised coming from persons who are not Shareholders or Affiliates of Shareholders. The “Conversion Price” was defined by reference to the lowest issue price of a share under the Subsequent Equity Round, or, if no Subsequent Equity Round occurred, “a price determined by way of a fully transparent auction bookbuild process with certain existing shareholders of the Company invited to participate, which is (i) conducted by a broker appointed by the Board; and (ii) is equal to the clearing price based on bids received in the bookbuild”. [39]

    39. Points of Claim, paragraph 15; Convertible Note Deed, Schedule 1, conditions 4 and 7 (Exhibit 1, p 338).

41. Clause 6.3 of the Convertible Note Deed provided that, during the “Term”, Moula must not do specified things without “Majority Noteholder Approval”, including: [40]

    40. Points of Claim, paragraph 15; Convertible Note Deed, clause 6.3 (Exhibit 1, pp 343–344).

1. anything other than carrying on in the ordinary course of Moula’s online lending business of making loans to businesses with an Australian Business Number for terms of up to 12 months;

2. borrowing or accepting any financial accommodation, except borrowing or financial accommodation that will on drawdown be used to redeem and pay each note, and interest on each note, in accordance with the conditions of issue in Schedule 1 of the Convertible Note Deed;

3. taking any action, or refrain from taking any action, that may result in the appointment of a liquidator, receiver, manager, receiver and manager, administrator or other external controller to Moula; and

4. reorganising its capital in any way.

42. The “Term” was defined as the period from the date of the Convertible Note Deed until the date of either the redemption and payment of the 2020 Notes or the conversion of the 2020 Notes into shares. [41]

    41. Points of Claim, paragraph 15; Convertible Note Deed, clause 1.1 (Exhibit 1, p 335).

43. The “Majority Noteholders” were defined in clause 1.1 and Schedule 2 of the Convertible Note Deed as the noteholders who together hold 50.01 per cent of the notes on issue at any relevant time, including (to the extent that they remain noteholders at any relevant time) Beat, Enares, and certain other named noteholders. The term “Majority Noteholder Approval” was defined in clause 1.1 as meaning a decision of the Majority Noteholders (by resolution or by agreement in writing signed by those noteholders). [42]

    42. Points of Claim, paragraph 15; Convertible Note Deed, clauses 1.1 and Schedule 2 (Exhibit 1, pp 334 and 348).

44. Mr Ridd ceased to be a director of Moula on 23 February 2021. [43]

    43. Company Extract (Exhibit 1, pp 1575–1605).

45. In early to mid-2021, the Board of Moula took steps towards undertaking the Subsequent Equity Round contemplated by the Convertible Note Deed. To that end, the Board engaged in discussions with Churchill Asset Management (Churchill), Afterpay Limited (Afterpay), and the group of companies to which Liberty Financial and Secure Funding by then belonged (the Liberty Group). [44] Each of Churchill, Afterpay, and the Liberty Group expressed interest in a potential equity investment in Moula. [45] These matters are recorded in draft minutes of meetings of the Board of Moula during the period from 27 January 2021 to 31 March 2021, copies of which are in the possession of Enares. [46] Mr Thompson has given evidence that he was informed about these matters at the time in conversations with Mr Allegos (who was then the Chief Executive Officer and a director of Moula), in Mr Thompson’s capacity as a director of Enares, which was both a Shareholder of Moula and one of the Majority Noteholders. Mr Thompson was not provided with written information at that time about offers made by third parties. [47]

    44. See [31] above.

    45. Points of Claim, paragraph 19. See [28]–[29] above in relation to the Liberty Group.

    46. Moula draft Board minutes for the period from 27 January 2021 to 31 March 2021 (Exhibit 1, pp 418–424).

    47. First Thompson Affidavit paragraphs 26–31.

46. Enares is in possession of draft minutes of a meeting of the Board of Moula on 31 March 2021 which record that Churchill was interested in investing $17.5 million. [48]

    48. Moula draft Board minutes - 31 March 2021 (Exhibit 1, p 423).

47. From no later than 8 April 2021, Mr Ma was opposed to Churchill becoming a Shareholder of Moula. [49] Enares is in possession of a redacted copy of draft minutes of a meeting of the Moula Board held on 8 April 2021 which record that Mr Ma “commented that Churchill is not a strategic investor”, “questioned whether they [Churchill] should be added to the register”, and “asked what implication of shareholders holding greater than 20% equity not agreeing to the Churchill placement”. [50]

    49. Points of Claim, paragraph 20.

    50. Moula draft Board minutes - 8 April 2021 (Exhibit 1, pp 425–426); First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 32.

48. From no later than 28 April 2021, Mr Ma promoted Liberty Group to the other directors of Moula as being interested in investing further in Moula. [51] Enares is in possession of a copy of draft minutes of a meeting of the Moula Board held on 28 April 2021, which record that Mr Allegos presented the key terms of the agreed form of the subscription agreement from Churchill and informed the meeting that no other formal proposal had been received. The draft minutes record that Mr Ma “questioned the need for introducing new shareholders that are not strategic”. Mr Cher acknowledged Mr Ma’s point but “reiterated the need to execute SER while trying to accommodate demand from the existing shareholding base”. I infer that the reference to “SER” in the draft minutes is a reference to the “Subsequent Equity Round” referred to in the Convertible Note Deed. The draft minutes record that Mr Ma then “indicated interest from Liberty at $30 million” and “reiterated the need to consider supporting long-term shareholders and their desire to invest”. [52]

    51. Points of Claim, paragraph 21.

    52. Moula draft Board minutes - 28 April 2021 (Exhibit 1, pp 427–428); First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 32.

49. In about late April or early May 2021, Churchill submitted to Moula a proposal that provided for Churchill to subscribe for $17,500,000 in shares at $4.79 per share, on the basis that existing Shareholders would subscribe for $10,000,000, in shares at the same price, implying a total valuation of $179,000,000 for Moula. The proposal provided for Churchill to appoint one director to Moula (the Churchill Subscription Proposal). In its Points of Claim filed in these proceedings, Enares contends that the Churchill Subscription Proposal did not require any amendment to the Shareholders Agreement or Convertible Note Deed. [53] However, draft minutes of meeting of the Board of Moula on 28 April 2021 record that the “key terms of the agreed form of the subscription agreement from Churchill” included “down round protection” (protecting Churchill from subsequent dilution) and a Board seat. [54]

    53. Points of Claim, paragraphs 22–23.

    54. Moula draft Board minutes - 28 April 2021 (Exhibit 1, pp 427–428).

42. On 3 May 2021, the Board of Moula resolved: [55]

1. to raise up to $27,500,000 by issuing ordinary shares, subject to Special Majority Approval of Shareholders under the Shareholders Agreement; and

2. to accept the Churchill Subscription Proposal, to proceed to document and finalise the Churchill Subscription Proposal, and to submit it for Special Majority Approval of Shareholders after the documentation has been finalised and duly executed.

   55. Points of Claim, paragraph 24.

51. The first resolution was unanimous. Mr Ma dissented from the second resolution. [56]

    56. Points of Claim, paragraph 25.

52. Enares is in possession of a copy of draft minutes of meeting of the Board of Moula held on 3 May 2021 recording those resolutions along with Mr Ma’s dissent to the second resolution. [57]

    57. Moula draft Board minutes for 3 May 2021 (Exhibit 1, pp 430–431); First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 33.

53. Enares has requested a copy of the Churchill Subscription Proposal. Moula has not provided that document to Enares. [58]

    58. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 33.

54. On 10 May 2021, Afterpay made a non-binding offer to acquire the whole of the shares in Moula for approximately $165,000,000 (the Afterpay Acquisition Offer). [59]

    59. Points of Claim, paragraph 26.

55. On 14 May 2021, Churchill advanced the Churchill Subscription Proposal by providing an executed offer letter to Moula (the Churchill Offer). [60]

    60. Points of Claim, paragraph 27.

56. At a meeting on 21 May 2021, the Board of Moula discussed the Churchill Offer and the Afterpay Acquisition Offer. Despite having earlier resolved to accept the Churchill Subscription Proposal (subject to Special Majority Approval of Shareholders), the Board agreed to allow Beat time to make its own equity investment offer. Mr Mathew Ryan was permitted to attend this Board meeting as an observer on behalf of Beat. [61]

    61. Points of Claim, paragraph 28.

57. Enares is in possession of draft minutes of the Board meeting on 21 May 2021. Mr Thompson has given evidence that Enares has written to Moula seeking an explanation for the Board’s decision to reverse its earlier decision to accept and proceed to formalise the Churchill Subscription Proposal, in favour of permitting Beat to prepare an offer. According to Mr Thompson’s evidence, Enares has not received any meaningful response to that request. [62]

    62. Moula draft Board minutes for 21 May 2021 (Exhibit 1, pp 432–435); First Thompson Affidavit, paragraphs 34–35.

58. The Board of Moula held two meetings on 26 May 2021. The Board discussed an offer that had been made by Beat to subscribe for $17,500,000 shares in Moula at $5.15 per share on the basis that existing shareholders would subscribe for $10,000,000 in shares at the same price, implying a value for Moula of approximately $188,000,000 (the Beat Offer). The terms of the Beat Offer included an amendment to the “drag along” provisions in clause 13.1 of the Shareholders Agreement that would change the threshold shareholding level required to trigger the “drag along” rights from 70 per cent to a level set at 1.75 per cent above Beat’s position following completion of the proposed transaction. Enares contends in its Points of Claim that the terms of the Beat Offer required certain further changes to the Shareholders Agreement, including an amendment to confer on Beat the right to appoint two directors, as well as changes to the Convertible Note Deed. Mr Ryan was again permitted to attend these Board meetings as an observer on behalf of Beat. [63]

    63. Points of Claim, paragraph 29.

59. At the Board meetings on 26 May 2021, the directors undertook to support the Beat Offer (including in their capacity as Shareholders and Noteholders), to work with Beat to document the Beat Offer, not to solicit any new offers or changes to existing offers, and not to discuss the terms of the Beat Offer with other parties. [64] Enares is in possession of draft minutes of both meetings held on 26 May 2021. [65]

    64. Points of Claim, paragraph 29.

    65. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 36; Moula draft minutes for Board meetings held on 26 May 2021 at 10:00am and at 2:00pm (Exhibit 1, pp 436–441).

60. In its Points of Claim filed in these proceedings, Enares contends that the undertakings given by the directors at the meetings on 26 May 2021 were not in the best interests of Moula or its Shareholders (other than Beat) because: [66]

    66. Points of Claim, paragraph 30.

1. the undertakings were contrary to the resolution passed on 21 May 2021 to accept the Churchill Subscription Proposal and to submit that proposal to shareholders for Special Majority Approval;

2. the undertakings caused delay in the implementation of the Churchill Subscription Proposal, and corresponding delay in Moula receiving the funding that it required;

3. the undertakings prevented Moula from negotiating further with Churchill, and others, with a view to improving the terms of the Churchill Offer or eliciting other offers;

4. the undertakings created a risk that the Churchill Offer and the associated funding would be lost to Moula; and

5. the undertakings favoured Beat (which was not a majority Shareholder of Moula) for no reason that was in the interests of Moula or its Shareholders.

61. Enares further contends that the matters referred to immediately above were known, or ought to have been known, to the directors of Moula, including Mr Ma. [67]

    67. Points of Claim, paragraph 31.

62. On 11 June 2021, the Board of Moula resolved by circular resolution to approve the Beat Offer with revised terms that provided for Beat to subscribe for $15,000,000 shares in Moula (rather than $17,500,000) on the basis that existing Shareholders would subscribe for $12,500,000 shares (rather than $10,000,000), and that provided for Beat to have the right to appoint an additional director of Moula. Mr Ma and each other director of Moula voted in favour of this resolution. The resolution noted that the Beat Offer was conditional on Special Majority Approval, amendments to the Shareholders Agreement, Majority Noteholder Approval, and amendments to the Convertible Note Deed. [68] Enares is in possession of signed copies of the circular resolution. [69]

    68. Points of Claim, paragraphs 32–33, 36–38.

    69. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 37; Written resolutions signed by Mr Allegos, Mr Ma and Mr Cher dated 11 June 2021 (Exhibit 1, pp 446–461).

63. In its Points of Claim filed in these proceedings, Enares contends that, on the basis of the terms of the Beat Offer and the Churchill Offer referred to above (and assuming that there were no other relevant terms of those offers of which Enares is aware, noting that Enares does not have copies of the Beat Offer, the Churchill Subscription Proposal and the Churchill Offer), it was in the interests of Moula to accept and implement the Churchill Offer, and to reject the Beat Offer, including for the following reasons: [70]

    70. Points of Claim, paragraph 34; First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 40.

1. the Churchill Offer had fewer conditions than the Beat Offer;

2. the Beat Offer required significant amendments to the Shareholders Agreement and Convertible Note Deed which carried with it a risk that the amendments would not be approved;

3. the conditions attached to the Beat Offer would be more difficult to achieve than those attached to the Churchill Offer;

4. the Beat Offer had a greater level of risk and uncertainty that it would not complete, and therefore that Moula would not obtain the funding it sought, as compared with the Churchill Offer;

5. Moula needed funding for working capital and was therefore not in a position to take a greater level of risk or uncertainty in respect of obtaining funding;

6. the Churchill Offer was first in time and able to be completed at an earlier time, thereby providing working capital to Moula at an earlier time;

7. the Churchill Offer would provide a greater level of funding to Moula than the Beat Offer, if Shareholders did not subscribe for shares to the level proposed in the Beat Offer;

8. the effect of the Beat Offer would be to increase the control of Beat over the Board, management and operations of Moula, including to a level that was not warranted based on its minority shareholding of Moula;

9. accepting the Churchill Subscription Proposal would result in a more balanced Board as compared with the Beat Offer; and

10. whilst the share price offered by Beat was higher than that offered by Churchill, the Churchill Offer share price was nonetheless a reasonable price.

64. Enares further contends that the matters referred to immediately above were known, or ought to have been known, to the directors of Moula, including Mr Ma. [71]

    71. Points of Claim, paragraph 35.

65. The Board of Moula distributed a proposed circular resolution to Shareholders on 15 June 2021 for the approval of the Beat share placement under the Beat Offer and the associated amendment to the Shareholders Agreement. [72] Enares received an email attaching that proposed resolution together with a proposed Deed of Amendment and Restatement – Shareholders Agreement, on 15 June 2021. [73]

    72. Points of Claim, paragraph 37.

    73. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraphs 38–39; Email dated 15 June 2021 and attachments (Exhibit 1, pp 462–547).

66. On 24 June 2021, the Board advised Shareholders by email that the approval process for the Beat Offer had been suspended, that recent inquiries had “prompted a review of historical matters requiring further clarification”, and that the review was expected to take four weeks, following which an update would be provided to Shareholders. However, the Board did not subsequently provide any update to Shareholders in relation to either the review process or the Beat Offer. [74] As a Shareholder in Moula, Enares received the 24 June 2021 email. [75] Mr Thompson has given evidence that, despite Enares requesting reasons for the failure of the Beat Offer, no cogent explanation has been forthcoming from Moula. [76]

    74. Points of Claim, paragraphs 39–40.

    75. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 41; Email dated 24 June 2021 (Exhibit 1, p 549).

    76. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 42.

67. In its Points of Claim filed in these proceedings, Enares states that it is not aware of any steps taken by either Moula or Mr Ma to revive the Churchill Offer or the Afterpay Acquisition Offer after the approval process for the Beat Offer was suspended. [77] Mr Thompson has given evidence to that effect. [78]

    77. Points of Claim, paragraph 41.

    78. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 43.

68. Enares is in possession of draft minutes of a meeting held by the Board of Moula on 25 June 2021, which record that Mr Cher was to “formulate a timeline for bookbuild, business review”, and that Mr Allegos and Mr Watter were to update Moula’s staff. The draft minutes state that the “messaging” to staff “needs be bland and notify staff that the cap raise has been pushed back a bit”. [79]

    79. Moula draft Board minutes for 25 June 2021 (Exhibit 1, p 550).

69. Mr Thompson has given evidence that, having regard to the matters referred to at [45]–[67] above, he is concerned that the Board of Moula may have failed to conduct the equity raise process in an independent and professional manner in the interests of all of Moula’s shareholders. Mr Thompson deposed: [80]

“Specifically, I am concerned about the following characteristics of the equity raise process and whether it may have involved breaches of the law by the Board, Moula or Beat:

(a)   the Board’s decision to abandon the, in many key respects superior, Churchill Subscription Proposal in favour of allowing an existing shareholder, Beat, to put in a competing bid in circumstances where Beat’s related party, Liberty, had already unsuccessfully participated in the equity process (see paragraph 32 above);

(b)   the decision to allow a Beat representative (Mr Ryan) to attend Board meetings where the Churchill Subscription Proposal was openly discussed, following which Beat submitted an offer in similar terms to the Churchill Subscription Proposal (save it valued the Company at slightly more);

(c)   the Board’s decision to then accept the Beat Offer without, it appears, contacting Churchill to see if it would match or improve on the Beat Offer;

(d)   that soon after the Beat Offer had been accepted and the Churchill Subscription Proposal withdrawn, the Beat Offer was promptly abandoned; and

(e)   the failure of the Company to explain why the Beat Offer was ultimately not implemented.”

80. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 44.

70. Mr Moller was appointed as a director of Moula on 20 August 2021. [81]

    81. Points of Claim, paragraph 8.

71. On or about 10 September 2021, Moula, Beat, and the Founders—Auor, Bazkat, and Mr Moller—entered into a Confirmation Letter. [82] Moula did not seek or obtain Special Majority Approval of Shareholders to enter into the Confirmation Letter. [83] Moula has declined to provide a copy of the Confirmation Letter to Enares. [84]

    82. Points of Claim, paragraph 45.

    83. Points of Claim, paragraph 46.

    84. Points of Claim, paragraph 47; First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 47; Second Thompson Affidavit, paragraphs 5–10.

72. Mr Moller ceased to be a director of Moula on 22 September 2021. [85]

    85. Points of Claim, paragraphs 8 and 49.

73. By no later than October 2021, Moula was experiencing liquidity stress, and the directors were considering placing Moula into voluntary administration. [86]

    86. Points of Claim, paragraph 50.

74. Mr Ma and Mr Cher ceased to be directors of Moula on 18 October 2021. [87]

    87. Points of Claim, paragraphs 4 and 51; Company Extract (Exhibit 1, pp 1575–1605).

75. Following the resignations of Mr Moller, Mr Ma, and Mr Cher, Moula had two directors during the period from 18 October 2021 until 9 January 2023—Mr Allegos and Mr Watt. [88]

    88. Points of Claim, paragraph 52.

76. On or about 28 October 2021, Moula, Liberty Financial, and Secure Funding entered into a Forbearance and Funding Deed. Moula did not seek or obtain Special Majority Approval of Shareholders or Majority Noteholder Approval to enter into the Forbearance and Funding Deed. Moula has declined to provide a copy of the Forbearance and Funding Deed to Enares. [89] Enares is in possession of a circular resolution signed by Mr Allegos and Mr Watt, and dated 28 October 2021, which states (emphasis in original): [90]

    89. Points of Claim, paragraphs 53–56; First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 47; Second Thompson Affidavit, paragraphs 5–10.

    90. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 45; Directors’ Circulating Resolution dated 28 October 2021 (Exhibit 1, pp 570–571).

“We the undersigned, being all the directors of the company state that we are in favour of the following RESOLUTION in writing of the Board of Directors of Moula Money Pty Ltd (the Company) dated this 28 day of October 2021:

BACKGROUND

A.   The Company currently is experiencing liquidity stress

B.   The Directors have considered options available to the company, including Voluntary Administration, a trade sale, and a demerger of the term loan business from the MoulaPay business, via Project Barton (a copy of the confirmation signed by the Founders, Beat, and the Company, dated 10 September 2021, as attached to this resolution)

C.   The Directors consider that a trade sale is almost certain to fail and is not a viable option

D.   The Directors have also sought advice from the safe harbour advisor (Shane Dean, Dye & Co) relating to the most appropriate course of action in light of the liquidity situation; Mr Deane discussed the alternatives and indicated that a successful project Barton would likely satisfy the Better Outcomes Test in relation to the insolvency safe harbour provisions; that being, that a successful Project Barton is likely to give a better outcome than a voluntary administration, to all relevant parties

E.   In the Directors opinion, Project Barton preserves value relative to voluntary administration, and as such the Directors need to take certain decisions in order to initiate Project Barton

F.   The first step in Project Barton is to execute the Forbearance and Funding Deed, drafted by KWM, on instruction of Liberty/Secure Funding, as the key parties in Moula Warehouse Trust No 1, which will be the entity providing certain forbearance and liquidity to the Company

G.   The Directors acknowledge there is no absolute certainty in Project Barton completing, however at this current point, the execution of the Forebearance and Funding Deed is necessary to initiate Project Barton, while the alternative is voluntary administration.

H.   The Directors have considered the Forbearance and Funding Deed in the context of the shareholders agreement, and are of the opinion that the obligations being incurred or acknowledged under the deed are obligations to repay Moula Warehouse Trust No 1 certain monies when due and payable, which is an obligation the company already has today via the guarantee and indemnity entered into in 2015 (as amended), and as such the directors consider that shareholder approval is not required

I.   The Directors consider that the transfer it is in the best interests of the Company.

IT IS RESOLVED THAT:

1.   The Company approves and consents to the execution of the Forbearance and Funding Deed in the form attached to this resolution.”

77. Mr Thompson has given evidence that he does not know why it was necessary for Moula to enter into a Forbearance and Funding Deed with Liberty Financial and Secured Funding. Through its solicitors, Enares has requested an explanation about why this was necessary. The reply from the solicitors for Moula has not identified any breaches of the Loan Facility that prompted Moula to enter into the Forbearance and Funding Deed. The solicitors for Moula have merely stated that it was “in need of funds”. Mr Thompson has given evidence that he therefore does not know if the execution of the Forbearance and Funding Deed could have been avoided if the Board of Moula had not abandoned its initial decision to accept and implement the Churchill Subscription Proposal. [91]

    91. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 48.

78. Enares is in possession of several documents that refer to the Forbearance and Funding Deed as providing “liquidity” and “operating cashflows”, consistently with the preamble to the 28 October 2021 circular resolution referred to above. [92]

    92. The documents include paragraph 3.11 of the Project Barton EM referred to at [88]–[91] below (Exhibit 1, pp 604–662 at p 645), and the Notice of General Meeting issued by Moula on 4 August 2022 as referred to at [110] below (Exhibit 1, pp 1216–1341 at p 1227).

79. Enares is in possession of a valuation report prepared by Ernst & Young on the instructions of the “Independent Board Committee” of Moula, dated 10 November 2021 (the EY Valuation Report). The report states that EY was instructed to value Moula’s Term Loan business and its Moula Pay business under Moula’s current corporate structure, and on an alternative basis assuming that those two businesses were operating separately under the proposed Project Barton restructure. After setting out the information and assumptions on which EY had relied, the report recorded EY’s conclusions that: [93]

1. the value of Moula under its current structure was between $94,400,000 and $133,400,000 (mid-point $113,900,000), on the assumption that “the continued impasse at the board of the Company will result in less preferable warehouse funding situation at the Company and delayed ramp up of the Moula Pay business”; and

2. the “sum of the parts” value of Moula under the proposed restructure separating the Term Loan business and the Moula Pay business would be between $117,500,000 and $177,800,000 (mid-point $147,600,000).

   93. Points of Claim, paragraph 60; EY Valuation Report dated 10 November 2021 (Exhibit 1, pp 572–586).

80. The EY Valuation Report noted that EY’s valuation ranges were lower than the valuations implied by Moula’s most recent capital raise and other offers received, including: [94]

1. the Afterpay Acquisition Offer which implied a value of $165,000,000;

2. the Churchill Subscription Proposal, which implied a value of $179,000,000; and

3. the Beat Offer, which implied a value of $188,000,000.

   94. Points of Claim, paragraph 60; EY Valuation Report dated 10 November 2021 (Exhibit 1, pp 584–585).

81. In relation to the Churchill Subscription Proposal and the Beat Offer, EY recorded their understanding that Moula did not proceed with the Churchill Offer because it “subsequently received a ‘superior’ offer from BEAT”, and that circumstances changed after the Beat Offer was received, in that Beat was provided with new information about Moula’s financial situation that Beat had not previously known, and had not factored into the terms of its offer, and further State-wide lockdowns in Moula’s key markets in New South Wales and Victoria threatened to dampen the Moula’s near term growth prospects. [95]

    95. EY Valuation Report dated 10 November 2021 (Exhibit 1, pp 584–585). These statements within the EY Valuation Report were admitted into evidence subject to an order under section 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) limiting their use to evidence of instructions provided to EY, assumptions made by EY or information provided to EY by unidentified representatives of the first defendant, and not evidence of the truth of those assumptions, instructions or information.

82. Moula, Beat, and the Founders entered into an updated Confirmation Letter on or about 11 November 2021. [96] Moula did not seek or obtain Special Majority Approval of Shareholders to enter into the updated Confirmation Letter. [97] Moula has declined to provide a copy of the updated Confirmation Letter to Enares. [98]

    96. Points of Claim, paragraph 45.

    97. Points of Claim, paragraph 46.

    98. Points of Claim, paragraph 47; First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 47; Second Thompson Affidavit, paragraphs 5–10.

83. On a date unknown to Enares, Moula, Beat, and the Founders entered into a Second Confirmation Letter. [99] Moula did not seek or obtain Special Majority Approval of Shareholders to enter into the Second Confirmation Letter. [100] Moula has declined to provide a copy of the Second Confirmation Letter to Enares. [101]

    99. Points of Claim, paragraph 45.

    100. Points of Claim, paragraph 46; Second Thompson Affidavit, paragraphs 5–9.

    101. Points of Claim, paragraph 47; First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 47; Second Thompson Affidavit, paragraphs 7–8.

84. Moula, Liberty Financial, and Secure Funding entered into Deeds of Variation to the Forbearance and Funding Deed on 7 January 2022, 8 February 2022, 4 March 2022, 31 March 2022, 10 May 2022, and 7 June 2022. Moula did not seek or obtain Special Majority Approval of Shareholders or Majority Noteholder Approval to enter into the Deeds of Variation. Enares is in possession of minutes of resolutions of the Board of Moula to enter into the Deeds of Variation, but Moula has declined to provide a copy of the Deeds of Variation to Enares. Enares does not know whether any further Deeds of Variation were entered into after 7 June 2022. [102]

    102. Points of Claim, paragraphs 53–56; First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 47; Second Thompson affidavit, paragraphs 5–10.

85. The Points of Claim filed by Enares in these proceedings describe the Confirmation Letter, updated Confirmation Letter, and Second Confirmation Letter referred to at [71], [77], and [83] above as the Confirmation Letters. I will adopt the same terminology in these reasons.

86. The Points of Claim filed by Enares in these proceedings describe the Forbearance and Funding Deed dated 28 October 2021 and the Deeds of Variation executed between 7 January 2022 and 7 June 2022, collectively, as the Forbearance and Funding Deeds. I will adopt the same terminology in these reasons.

87. As referred to above, Enares does not have copies of the Forbearance and Funding Deeds and of the Confirmation Letters. Mr Thompson has given evidence that Enares also does not have a copy of the Loan Facility agreement. Mr Thompson expects that Enares will need a copy of that agreement in order to understand the terms of the Forbearance and Funding Deeds. [103]

    103. Second Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 8.

88. Mr Thompson has given evidence that, although he has not seen the Forbearance and Funding Deeds and the Confirmation Letters, he believes that they may have been entered into in breach of clause 7 of the Shareholders Agreement (which prohibits Moula from, inter alia, entering into agreements with Shareholders and Affiliates of Shareholders without Special Majority Approval), or in breach of the Convertible Note Deed (which requires Majority Noteholder Approval for borrowing or acceptance of financial accommodation). [104]

    104. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 49.

89. On 23 March 2022, Moula sent an email to Shareholders which stated that, since June 2021, Moula had been working to resolve an impasse amongst key Shareholders with respect to the strategy, governance, and direction of Moula. The email stated that the Board had commenced exploring a “demerger” in late August 2021 with a view to resolving the impasse, and that an “Independent Board Committee” had concluded that a demerger was in the best interests of all Shareholders. The email referred to the EY Valuation Report, which had valued the businesses as being worth more separately rather than under the existing structure (in which both businesses were part of Moula). The email provided further information about Project Barton, and attached an Explanatory Memorandum together with a circular resolution that would need to be passed unanimously by shareholders in order to effect the proposed demerger (the Project Barton EM and the Project Barton Resolution). [105]

    105. Points of Claim, paragraphs 61 and 63; First Thompson Affidavit, paragraphs 50–51; Email from Mr Allegos to Mr Thompson dated 23 March 2022, together with Project Barton EM, Project Barton Resolution and other attachments (Exhibit 1, pp 604–662).

90. Enares contends that it does not know the nature of the impasse referred to in the EY Valuation Report and in the 23 March 2022 email. [106]

    106. Points of Claim, paragraph 62; Second Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 13.

91. Paragraph 2.6 of the Project Barton EM disclosed the following formation about the existence, and contents, of the Forbearance and Funding Deeds and Confirmation Letters: [107]

“Shareholders should also be aware that the Company is a party to:

(a)   a forbearance and funding deed with Liberty and Secure Funding Pty Ltd ACN 081 982 872 in its capacity as trustee of the Moula Warehouse Trust No. 1; and

(b)   a confirmation letter with the Beat and the Founders,

which provides that:

(c)   the Company must, among other requirements, effect a demerger of the Leda Universal Business from the Company and related transactions, the terms of which are now set out in the [Demerger Implementation Deed]; and

(d)   if the shareholders of the Company do not approve the demerger and related transactions, the Company must immediately be placed in voluntary administration.”

107. Points of Claim, paragraph 64; Project Barton EM, paragraph 2.6 (Exhibit 1, p 644).

92. Paragraph 3.11 of the Project Barton EM referred to the “liquidity provided by Liberty under the Forbearance and Funding Deed, and used to provide operating cashflows to the Company as and when required”. [108]

    108. Project Barton EM, paragraph 3.11 (Exhibit 1, p 645).

93. The reference to “Leda Universal” is a reference to a subsidiary of Moula, Leda Universal Pty Limited (Leda), and the reference to the “Leda Universal Business” is a reference to the Moula Pay Business. [109]

    109. Points of Claim, paragraph 64(a).

94. On 3 April 2022, Mr Allegos sent an email to Mr Thompson attaching a Demerger Implementation Deed and other transaction documents proposed to be entered into in order to give effect to Project Barton. [110]

    110. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 51; Email from Mr Allegos dated 3 April 2022, with attachments (Exhibit 1, pp 665–1056).

95. Mr Thompson has given evidence that, on the basis of his review of the Project Barton EM, the Project Barton Resolution, and the additional documents that he received on 3 April 2022, he understood that Project Barton had the following key elements: [111]

    111. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 51.

1. Moula’s assets related to the Moula Pay Business would be transferred to Leda;

2. Moula would undertake a capital reduction by transferring to each Moula Shareholder one fully paid ordinary share in Leda, such that current Shareholders of Moula would become shareholders in both Moula and Leda, with Beat holding 33.34 per cent of the shares in Moula, and the Founders (collectively) holding 30.42 per cent of the shares in Leda;

3. the Board of Leda would comprise a minimum of four and a maximum of seven directors, with the four directors in office immediately after the implementation of Project Barton being two directors appointed by the Founders and two further directors appointed by those two directors;

4. additional directors could be appointed to the Leda Board (up to a maximum of seven directors) by special majority vote of the Leda Board (80 per cent);

5. approval of 80 per cent of Leda’s shareholders would be required for Leda to do a number of things which would ordinarily be within the power of a Board, or which would ordinarily be able to be approved by a simple majority of shareholders voting in general meeting (for example, to borrow more than $500,000 in any 12 month period, or to pay remuneration to any director);

6. the Board of Moula would be comprised of between four and seven directors, with the four directors in office immediately after the implementation of Project Barton being two directors appointed by Beat and two further directors appointed by those two directors;

7. the approval of 80 per cent of Moula Shareholders would be required for Moula to do a number of things which would ordinarily be within the power of a board, or which would ordinarily be able to be approved by a simple majority of shareholders voting in general meeting (for example, to borrow more than $500,000 in any 12 month period, or to pay remuneration to any director);

8. Beat would offer to acquire the 2020 Notes from existing Noteholders (other than the Founders) at a price not disclosed in the Project Barton EM, and the 2020 Notes would then convert into Moula and Leda shares; and

9. Beat would offer to acquire shares in Moula from existing Shareholders at a price of $3.60551 per share.

96. The Points of Claim filed by Enares in these proceedings refers to the following additional elements of Project Barton referred to in the Project Barton EM and the Project Barton Resolution: [112]

1. the current directors of Moula—Mr Allegos (a nominee of Auor) and Mr Watt (a nominee of Bazkat)—would be required to resign as directors; and

2. Beat had agreed to provide a secured loan of up to $20 million to Moula, part of which was to be used by Beat to fund the purchase of shares from existing Moula Shareholders (excluding the Founders) at the price of $3.60551 per share.

   112. Points of Claim, paragraph 64; Email from Mr Allegos to Mr Thompson dated 23 March 2022, together with Project Barton EM, Project Barton Resolution, and other attachments (Exhibit 1, pp 604–662).

97. The Project Barton EM and the Project Barton Resolution stated that the directors were of the view that, if the Shareholders did not approve the demerger proposal, then the only other alternative would be to put Moula into voluntary administration. [113]

    113. Points of Claim, paragraph 64; Project Barton EM, paragraph 3.7 (Exhibit 1, p 644).

98. Mr Thompson has given evidence that, although the Project Barton was referred to as a “demerger” in the Project Barton EM and other documents provided to Shareholders, he understood that it was in fact an in-specie distribution of assets by way of a dividend, which he considered would have future tax consequences. Mr Thompson has deposed that it appears to have been intended that, following the dividend in-specie, Moula (operating the Term Loans Business) and Leda (operating the Moula Pay Business) would carry on separate businesses under separate management. [114]

    114. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 52.

99. In its Points of Claim filed in these proceedings, Enares contends that the demerger proposal set out in the Project Barton EM and the Project Barton Resolution would have had the result of: [115]

    115. Points of Claim, paragraph 65.

1. increasing Beat’s shareholding in Moula so that it would be larger than the combined shareholding of the Founders;

2. providing effective control of the Board, management, and operations of Moula to Beat, notwithstanding that Beat would own less than 50 per cent of the shares in Moula, by:

1. making Beat the only Shareholder entitled to appoint any director to Moula;

2. entitling Beat to appoint two of the four directors of Moula; and

3. entitling the Board to appoint the two independent directors (which effectively meant that Beat could appoint non-executive directors of its choice);

3. making it difficult for Shareholders other than Beat (including Enares) to sell their shares in Moula for fair value;

4. enabling Beat to purchase the shares of Shareholders at a value significantly below the value in the EY Valuation Report;

5. effectively locking in Shareholders who did not sell their shares to Beat, in circumstances where the $4 million to be spent by Beat in purchasing shares was not sufficient to purchase the shares of all of the other Shareholders.

100. Enares further contends that the Project Barton EM and Project Barton Resolution provided for corresponding changes in relation to Leda, which was to run the Moula Pay Business following the proposed demerger, with the difference being that the Founders would have effective control over Leda’s board of directors, management, and operations, whereas Beat would have effective control over Moula’s board of directors, management, and operations. [116]

     116. Points of Claim, paragraph 66.

101. Mr Thompson has given evidence that he was concerned about the outcomes referred to at [99]–[100] above. [117]

     117. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 53.

102. Mr Thompson has given evidence that he was also concerned that the possibility of Beat purchasing shares from existing Shareholders of Moula at a price of approximately $3.60 appeared to be illusory, based on information provided to him during a video conference with the Moula board and a number of other Shareholders and Noteholders in about April or May 2022. [118]

     118. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraphs 54–55.

103. For the purpose of considering Project Barton, Enares requested—and Moula provided to Enares—copies of the EY Valuation Report, financial reports and financial forecasts of Moula, and minutes of a meeting of the directors of Moula on 30 November 2021. [119]

     119. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 57.

104. On 10 May 2022, Enares advised Moula that it did not intend to execute the Project Barton Resolution. It was therefore not possible for Moula to achieve the requisite unanimous approval of Shareholders. [120]

     120. Points of Claim, paragraphs 67–69; First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 58; see [88] above.

105. Contrary to the indication that had been given by the directors of Moula in the Project Barton EM, Moula was not placed into voluntary administration. [121]

     121. Points of Claim, paragraph 70.

106. On 16 May 2022, Enares’ solicitors wrote to Moula, referring to information previously provided by Moula that, prior to executing the Forbearance and Funding Deed, Moula did not have cash available to continue operating, and that the Forbearance and Funding Deed had “provided the framework for funding the operating cash flow of Moula while pursuing the implementation of Project Barton”. Enares’ solicitors asked whether, following the failure to achieve unanimous Shareholder and Noteholder approval for Project Barton, Moula was now back in the position that it lacked the cash flow to continue operating. Enares’ solicitors referred to Moula’s representation and warranty under clause 6.1(d) of the Convertible Note Deed that, on the date of Convertible Note Deed and on each day during the Term, Moula is not insolvent. Enares’ solicitors asked whether that representation had been breached at any time, and whether it remained true. [122]

     122. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 60; Letter from Baker McKenzie to Mr Allegos of Moula dated 16 May 2022 (Exhibit 1, pp 1145–1146).

107. Moula’s solicitors replied by letter dated 20 May 2022 that: [123]

“•   Moula Money rejects any suggestion or implication that it has at any relevant time been insolvent; and

•   at various times it has been communicated by Moula Money to shareholders that in the absence of the demerger proceeding that it would be necessary to place Moula Money into voluntary administration. That has not been necessary as Moula Money has to date maintained access to warehousing funding and funding for the operating cash flow of the business.”

123. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 60; Letter from Minter Ellison to Baker McKenzie dated 20 May 2022 (Exhibit 1, p 1147).

108. Mr Thompson has deposed that: [124]

“It is concerning to me that the Board communicated what appears to have been a baseless threat to place the Company into administration if the resolutions for implementing Project Barton were not approved. My concerns about the conduct of the Board and the Company are elevated by the fact that, had Project Barton been implemented, it would have delivered significant benefits to Beat and the Founders in preference to the interests of shareholders (and noteholders) as a whole … I lost substantial trust and confidence in the Board from that point forward.”

124. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 61.

109. On 2 June 2022, Mr Allegos, on behalf of Moula, wrote to Shareholders and Noteholders stating that the Board remained committed to pursuing the demerger process envisaged at the outset of Project Barton, given the overwhelming support of Shareholders. Mr Allegos stated: [125]

“… an important step in executing Project Barton was the treatment of the Unsecured Convertible Notes and the proposed share sale. To that end, the Company proposes to conduct a capital raising through the pro rate issue of new Unsecured Convertible Notes with the funds raised to be used to repay the existing noteholders’ principal and accrued interest in full;

…

This raising is a pro-rata offer to all shareholders … ”

125. Email from Mr Allegos dated 2 June 2022 (Exhibit 1, p 1162).

110. On 7 June 2022, the solicitors acting for Enares and Neil Sutton Family Superannuation Pty Limited sent an open letter to Moula’s solicitors, and to all Shareholders of Moula, stating that Enares did not intend to participate in the new convertible notes and did not consent to its 2020 Notes being redeemed for cash. This precluded Moula from proceeding with the proposed capital raise to redeem all 2020 Notes. [126]

     126. Points of Claim, paragraphs 71–82; Second Thompson Affidavit, paragraphs 14–24; affidavit of Nicholas Anson affirmed on 9 March 2023, paragraphs 65–67; Letter from Baker McKenzie to Minter Ellison dated 7 June 2022 (Exhibit 1, pp 1166–1167).

111. On 8 July 2022, Mr Allegos sent an email to Shareholders stating that, due to material deterioration in market conditions, the Board had decided that it was not in the best interests of Moula and its Shareholders to proceed with the proposed demerger of Moula and Leda at that time. The email continued (emphasis in original): [127]

     127. Email from Mr Allegos dated 8 July 2022 – Moula Shareholder Update July 2022 (Exhibit 1, pp 1197–1198).

“UNSECURED CONVERTIBLE NOTES | 2020

Presently, the Company’s ability to access new funding is restricted by certain negative undertakings in the 2020 Unsecured Convertible Note Deed Poll (the ‘2020 CNDP’).

Application for preliminary discovery against Moula

166. Enares has made extensive requests for information from Moula. In response to those requests, Moula has provided Enares with copies of financial information and forecasts for the 2020, 2021, and 2022 financial years, and minutes of meetings of the Board of Moula and circular resolutions of the Board during the period from July 2020 to June 2022 (many of which are in draft form, and are partly redacted). [177]

     177. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraphs 62–65.

167. Enares is also in possession of the notices of general meeting and explanatory memoranda that it received as a shareholder of Moula. [178] Enares is also in possession of the EY Valuation Report. [179]

     178. See [88]–[111] above.

     179. See [79]–[81] and [103] above.

168. Enares does not have any Board minutes for the period prior to 1 July 2020 or for the period after 6 June 2022, does not have unredacted, signed copies of Board minutes for the period from July 2020 to June 2022, and does not have copies of the Board packs, papers, or other documents provided to the Board in connection with those meetings. [180] Moula’s solicitors have informed Enares’ solicitors that the minutes that are in draft form were never finalised or signed at the time of the relevant meeting, and were never adopted by Moula as final, but that those draft minutes nevertheless constitute “the Company’s proper record of the particular meeting”. Moula’s solicitors have also informed Enares’ solicitors that redactions in the copies of the minutes provided to Enares are for legal professional privilege. [181]

     180. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 64.

     181. Letter from MinterEllison to Baker McKenzie dated 12 July 2022 (Exhibit 1, pp 1208–1209).

169. Enares does not have documents of the kind referred to in the nine categories of documents in respect of which Enares seeks preliminary discovery orders against Moula. Enares requested those documents from Moula shortly before commencing these proceedings, and Moula declined to provide them to Enares. [182]

     182. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraphs 66 and 69.

170. I accept Enares’ submission that it has made reasonable inquiries for the purpose of UCPR r 5.3.

171. Subject to one qualification, there is no suggestion that Moula may not be in possession of the nine categories of documents in respect of which Enares seeks orders for preliminary discovery against it. The qualification relates to signed Board minutes, for the reasons referred to at [168] above.

172. The nine categories of documents are helpfully identified in a schedule annexed to Enares’ written submissions in reply dated 4 May 2023. I have considered all of the parties’ written and oral submissions in relation to each category, irrespective of whether those submissions are expressly referred to in these reasons.

Category 1: Copies of the Loan Facility, the Forbearance and Funding Deed, the Confirmation Letter, and the Second Confirmation Letter

173. Enares submits that it requires the documents in category 1 to assist its decision whether to commence proceedings in respect of the Contract Claims and the Oppression Claim.

174. Enares submits that the Forbearance and Funding Deeds and Confirmation Letters (including all amendments to those documents) are required in order for Enares to:

1. confirm the parties to the Forbearance and Funding Deeds and Confirmation Letters;

2. confirm whether Moula breached the Shareholders Agreement and/or the Convertible Note Deed by entering into the Funding and Forbearance Deeds and Confirmation Letters, which Enares submits turns on whether the parties are Affiliates of Shareholders, and whether financial accommodation is provided;

3. confirm the impact of the terms of the Forbearance and Funding Deeds and Confirmation Letters on Moula and Enares, in order for Enares to determine:

1. whether they have caused loss to Enares for the purpose of the Contract Claims; and

2. whether Moula’s entry into the documents was oppressive for the purpose of the Oppression Claims, including by assessing their impact on Moula and, by extension, on Enares’ shareholding in Moula, and by considering whether the terms of the documents prevented Moula from growing its business and thereby increasing revenue.

175. Mr Thompson has given evidence to the same effect as the submissions set out above. [183]

     183. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 76; Second Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 74.

176. Enares further submits that it is necessary for it know the terms of the Loan Facility in order to consider what options were available to Moula when it entered the Forbearance and Funding Deeds. It was submitted that “[i]t cannot seriously be suggested that it is not necessary to know the terms of the Loan Facility in order to assess the terms of the Forbearance and Funding Deeds and the propriety and reasonableness of Moula’s actions in entering into the latter.” I assume that the reference to “the propriety and reasonableness of Moula’s actions” in entering into the Forbearance and Funding Deed is a reference to the question whether entry into that deed was in the interests of Moula and its shareholders as a whole. Enares submits that this question depends, in part, on what forbearance was afforded to Moula under the Forbearance and Funding Deeds, and whether there were any alternatives available to Moula other than entering into the Forbearance and Funding Deeds. Moula’s submissions accept that the availability (or lack of availability) of alternatives is important to the Oppression Claim, and criticises Enares for failing to articulate in its Points of Claim or submissions what those alternatives might have been, having regard to the negative undertakings in clause 6.3 of the Convertible Note Deed that precluded Moula from borrowing or accepting financial accommodation without the approval of Majority Noteholders, which included Enares and Beat. [184] Enares submits that the terms of the Loan Facility, of the Forbearance and Funding Deeds, and of the Confirmation Letters, will be relevant to the availability of alternatives, and that, in addition to being relevant to the Oppression Claims, this is also relevant to the question whether the impact of the Forbearance and Funding Deeds and Confirmation Letters on Moula has caused loss to Enares. It is necessary for Enares to identify whether it has suffered loss in order to make a decision whether to commence proceedings in relation to the Contract Claims.

     184. See [40] above.

177. I accept Moula’s submissions that the Points of Claim and Enares’ detailed written and oral submissions in these proceedings demonstrate that Enares is already in possession of extensive information pertaining to liability questions that will arise if proceedings are commence in respect of the Contract Claims. [185]

     185. I refer, in particular, to paragraphs 33–34 of Enares’ written submissions dated 4 May 2023.

178. However, I accept Enares’ submissions that it reasonably requires the category 1 documents in order to decide whether to commence proceedings. In particular, I accept that it is reasonably necessary for Enares to know the full terms of the Loan Facility (including in relation to the rights of Liberty as lender in the event of any default), and the full terms of the forbearance and additional funding provided under the Forbearance and Funding Deeds, in order to form a view about the likely counterfactual scenarios if Moula had not entered into the Forbearance and Funding Deeds. In my opinion, that view will be an important consideration in Enares’ assessment of its prospects of proving loss for the purpose of the Contract Claims (and the likely nature and potential extent of any such loss), and its assessment of whether Moula’s entry into the Confirmation Letters and Forbearance and Funding Deeds can arguably be characterised as oppressive. Each of those assessments are important factors in the decision whether to commence proceedings in respect of the Contract Claim and the Oppression Claims. For those reasons, I am satisfied that Enares lacks sufficient information to decide whether to commence proceedings against Moula in respect of the Contract Claim and the Oppression Claims, that Enares reasonably requires the category 1 documents for that purpose, and that inspection of the category 1 documents would assist Enares to decide whether to commence those proceedings.

179. There will therefore be an order pursuant to UCPR r 5.3 requiring Moula to give discovery to Enares of all category 1 documents that are or have been in Moula’s possession.

180. In his affidavit affirmed on 9 March 2023, Moula’s solicitor on record, Mr Nicholas Anson, gave evidence that Moula considers the category 1 documents to be highly commercially sensitive information because they concern the past, present, and future provision of finance to Moula. In particular, the Loan Facility document includes commercially sensitive information about the amount of funding available, the applicable interest rate, the level of subordination required, and eligibility criteria setting out what constitutes a loan receivable that may be funded under the Loan Facility. Mr Anson also gave evidence that the category 1 documents are subject to confidentiality obligations which prohibit dissemination of the documents to persons who are not parties to them. [186]

     186. Affidavit of Nicholas James Anson affirmed on 9 March 2023, paragraphs 43–45.

181. I reject Enares’ submission that there is no justification for any confidentiality regime to apply in respect of category 1 documents discovered by Moula in these proceedings. However, I accept Enares’ submission that the terms of the confidentiality deed proposed by Moula are inappropriate. [187] Those terms are inappropriate because they would limit disclosure of the documents to Enares’ legal representatives, and because the permitted uses of the documents specified in clause 2 of the proposed confidentiality deed do not extend to assisting Enares to make a decision whether to commence proceedings. That decision is one for the directors of Enares.

     187. Exhibit 1, pp 2021–2024.

182. The order for preliminary discovery of the category 1 documents will be conditional on: (a) the recipients of those documents being limited to directors of Enares, and to Enares’ legal representatives and other persons referred to in clauses 4 and 5 of the draft confidentiality deed prepared by Moula; and (b) those recipients signing a confidentiality deed substantially in terms of the draft deed prepared by Moula, subject to changes to clauses 2, 4, and 5 to address my criticisms of the draft deed above.

Category 2: Documents dated between 1 March 2021 and 30 June 2021 recording communications between the Board of Moula (including any one or more of the directors of Moula) and one or more of Beat and Matthew Ryan referring to the Churchill Offer and/or the Beat Offer

183. Enares submits that it requires the documents in category 2 to decide whether to commence proceedings in respect of the Derivative Claims and the Oppression Claim.

184. Enares submits that it requires the communications in category 2 to be able to assess the reasons why Moula did not follow through with its 3 May 2021 resolution to seek Special Majority Approval of Shareholders to accept the Churchill Subscription Proposal, the reasons why Moula resolved on 21 May 2021 to allow Beat time to formulate its own offer after Mr Ma and Beat had been privy to the terms of the Churchill Offer, the reasons why Moula agreed with Beat not to afford Churchill any opportunity to revise or improve its offer, and the reasons why Moula favoured the Beat Offer over the Churchill Offer. [188]

     188. See [49]–[66] above.

185. I accept that those matters would be relevant to Enares’ decision whether to commence proceedings in respect of the Oppression Claim and (to the extent that they relate to Mr Ma) the Derivative Claim. However, category 2 is drafted in such wide terms that it is very likely to capture a large volume of documents that do not record or evidence those matters. As Moula submitted, category 2 would require discovery of all communications between a wide range of persons that merely refer to the Churchill Offer or the Beat Offer. Having regard to the extensive information that Enares already possesses, and the documents that are to be discovered under category 1 above, and under categories 3 and 5 below, I am not satisfied that Enares reasonably requires the documents in category 2 in order to make the decision whether to commence proceedings.

186. There will be no order for preliminary discovery in respect of category 2.

Category 3: Documents comprising the Beat Offer and its terms, and the Churchill Offer and its terms

187. Enares submits that it requires the documents in category 3 to assist its decision whether to commence proceedings in respect of the Derivative Claim and the Oppression Claim.

188. Moula submits that the terms of the Beat Offer and the Churchill Offer are “sufficiently recorded” in other documents already available to Enares for it to make a decision about whether to commence proceedings. I understand Moula to be referring to the Board minutes, proposed circular resolution, and other documents identified at [45]–[65] above. Whilst those documents contain information about key commercial terms of the Churchill Offer and the Beat Offer, an assessment of the whole of the terms of each of those offers that were considered by the Board is important to the question of whether Moula’s actions in preferring the Beat Offer to the exclusion of the Churchill Offer, and in foregoing the opportunity to seek or entertain any revised offer from Churchill or any proposal from any other potential investor, can properly be characterised as oppressive.

189. For those reasons, I reject Moula’s submissions, and accept that the category 3 documents are reasonably necessary for Enares to decide whether to commence proceedings against Moula (and Beat) in respect of the Oppression Claim, and that inspection of the category 3 documents would assist Enares to make that decision.

190. That conclusion renders it unnecessary to consider category 3 by reference to the Derivative Claims.

191. There will be an order pursuant to UCPR r 5.3 requiring Moula to give discovery to Enares of all category 3 documents that are or have been in Moula’s possession.

Category 4: Any documents dated between 1 March 2021 and 30 June 2021 sent to or from Moula’s Board referring to the Churchill Offer and/or the Beat Offer

192. Enares submits that it requires the category 4 documents for the same reasons that it requires the category 2 documents, but that category 4 captures a wider range of types of documents, in that it is not limited to documents recording communications, and it is not limited to documents passing between the Board of Moula and Beat. Enares submits that this is because communications between the Board of Moula and Churchill, and between members of the Board of Moula, are “critical to an assessment of the postulated claims”. Enares provides the example that, if the directors of Moula attempted to re-enliven the Churchill Offer, and that attempt failed, that would be “highly relevant to the prospects of the Churchill Claims”.

193. I reject Enares’ submissions for the same reasons explained in relation to category 2 above,[189] and for the following two additional reasons. First, the submissions are predicated on an assumption that material communications may have occurred between directors of Moula, without the substance of the issues raised by any such communications being mentioned in minutes of Board meetings at which the Churchill Offer and the Beat Offer were discussed. There is no evidence of any reason to believe that this may have occurred. Second, the submissions are based on an equally speculative assumption that the directors may have attempted to re-enliven the Churchill Offer, notwithstanding their undertaking to Beat on 26 May 2021 not to do so.

     189. See [185] above.

194. It is possible for any prospective plaintiff contemplating commencing proceedings to articulate an infinite variety of hypothetical events that, if they occurred, would be known only to the prospective defendant, and would be capable of affecting the prospective plaintiff’s claims or the prospects of success of those claims. By throwing up the speculative assumptions on which it relies in relation to category 4, Enares is simply seeking further and better information about its potential claims, in circumstances where the extensive information already in its possession, together with the further information that it will obtain from preliminary discovery of the documents in categories 1, 3, and 5, is sufficient for Enares to make a decision whether to commence proceedings.

195. There will be no order for preliminary discovery in respect of category 4.

Category 5: Any documents dated between 1 March 2021 and 30 June 2021 recording consideration by Moula’s Board of the Beat Offer and/or the Churchill Offer

196. I accept Enares’ submissions that the documents in category 5 are likely to disclose the reasons why Moula did not follow through with its 3 May 2021 resolution to seek Special Majority Approval of Shareholders to accept the Churchill Subscription Proposal, the reasons why Moula resolved on 21 May 2021 to allow Beat time to formulate its own offer after Mr Ma and Beat had been privy to the terms of the Churchill Offer, the reasons why Moula agreed with Beat not to afford Churchill any opportunity to revise or improve its offer, and the reasons why Moula favoured the Beat Offer over the Churchill Offer. [190] I accept that those reasons are important matters that will inform Enares’ decision whether to commence proceedings in relation to the Oppression Claim and the Derivative Claim, and I consider that Enares reasonably requires those documents in order to make that decision. I note that Moula accepted that, if any order for preliminary discovery were to be made in respect of category 5, then the scope of that category was appropriately confined by the wording set out above.

     190. See [49]–[66] above.

197. There will be an order pursuant to UCPR r 5.3 requiring Moula to give discovery to Enares of all category 5 documents that are or have been in Moula’s possession.

Category 6: Any documents dated between 1 March 2021 and 30 June 2021 recording why the Beat Offer did not complete, or referring to the withdrawal of the Beat Offer

198. Enares submits that it requires the documents in category 6 to assist its decision whether to commence proceedings in respect of the Derivative Claim and the Oppression Claim. Enares submits that documents specifically concerning why the Beat Offer did not complete are crucial to an assessment of the efficacy and strength of the Oppression Claim and the Derivative Claim, including enabling Enares to understand any loss caused by the conduct of Moula and of Mr Ma, and to understand “the motivations of Beat”. In relation to loss, Enares submits that it needs to know the reasons why the Beat Offer did not complete because, if the Churchill Offer would have failed to complete for the same reasons, then Enares may fail to establish that the conduct caused any loss. Enares submits that category 6 has been included to guard against the possibility that documents relating specifically to reasons why the Beat Offer did not complete may not be captured by the categories above.

199. I am not satisfied that category 6 is reasonably necessary for Enares to make a decision whether to commence proceedings. Category 5 is sufficiently broad to cover any documents of the kind referred to in Enares’ submissions. In my opinion, it would be inconsistent with the overriding purpose in s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) to exercise the discretion under UCPR r 5.3 to make preliminary discovery orders in terms that burden the prospective defendant with the task of giving preliminary discovery by reference to multiple overlapping categories of documents for no valid reason.

198. There will be no order for preliminary discovery in respect of category 6.

Category 7: All board packs and documents provided to attendees of meetings of the Board of Moula from 31 March 2021 to date

201. Enares submits that category 7 relates to the prospective Contract Claim, Derviative Claim (to the extent that it captures documents in the period up to 30 June 2021), and the Oppression Claim.

202. Enares submits that copies of papers considered by the Board of Moula “will shed light on” the reasons why the Board has acted as it has in not accepting the Churchill Offer, in accepting the Beat Offer, in entering into the Confirmation Letters and Forbearance and Funding Deeds, in seeking to implement the demerger of the Term Loan and Moula Pay businesses in various ways since late 2021, including through the bookbuild process, and the reasonableness of those actions. Enares submits that the category 7 documents would also “shed light” on the degree to which Moula’s affairs have been hampered by the shareholder dispute between Beat and the Founders.

203. Moula submits that category 7 is, in effect, a “royal commission into Moula’s management decisions over a lengthy period of time”.

204. Moula has suggested that the plaintiff should propose amendments to category 7 so that it is tethered to the prospective claims. Enares has responded to this suggestion by pressing the category in its present terms in the absence of any proposed amendment formulated by Moula.

205. I accept that the extremely broadly drafted category would catch documents that would be likely to “shed light” on the matters identified in Enares’ submission. It does not follow, however, that Enares reasonably requires such documents—in addition to the extensive information already in its possession—to make a decision whether to commence proceedings. Enares’ submissions simply do not address the requirements of r 5.3 in relation to proposed category 7. For example, Enares does not articulate why it requires any further documents to “shed light” on the degree to which Moula’s affairs have been hampered by the dispute between Beat and the Founders, in circumstances where Enares is already in possession of the information contained in the November 2022 “Moula – Term Loans Update” referred to at [118] above. It is not appropriate for Enares to purport to delegate to Moula the task of formulating a proposed category in a manner that reflects r 5.3 and the principles applicable to its application.

206. There will be no order for preliminary discovery in respect of category 7.

Category 8: All board minutes dated from 23 February 2021 to date, excluding any unredacted board minutes that have already been provided to Enares by Moula

207. Enares seeks an order for preliminary discovery in relation to category 8 for the same reasons that it articulated in relation to category 7 above. Moula raises the same objection that proposed category 8 is too broad.

208. Again, Enares has failed to articulate why this category—the terms of which are untethered to the prospective claims under consideration—is reasonably required for it to make a decision whether to commence proceedings. Enares submits that the category is not burdensome, but that is not the test under r 5.3.

209. There will be no order for preliminary discovery in respect of category 8.

Category 9:    All documents recording communications between any director or representative of Moula and/or representatives of Beat and/or representatives of Liberty or Secure Funding between 1 September 2021 to date referring to the Forbearance and Funding Deed, the Confirmation Letter, and/or the Second Confirmation Letter

210. Category 9 is extremely broadly drafted. It extends to any communications between the relevant representatives that merely refers to the Forbearance and Funding Deed, the Confirmation Letter, and/or the Second Confirmation Letter, at any time since the first of those documents was entered into.

211. Enares submits that it seeks preliminary discovery of the category 9 documents because it is “critical” for the Oppression Claim and the Contract Claim “to determine (i) the reasons why the Confirmation Letters and Forbearance and Funding Deeds were entered into; (ii) what their purpose and intended effect were; (iii) whether there is a direct link between the letters and the deeds; and (iv) what each of Moula, Beat and Liberty/Secure Funding stood to gain or lose from them”.

212. In my opinion, the documents in category 1 will yield information in relation to each of the four matters identified in Enares’ submissions. Enares does not articulate why any additional information that may be contained in documents falling within proposed category 9 is information that it reasonably requires in order to make a decision whether to commence proceedings.

213. There will be no order for preliminary discovery in respect of category 9.

Application for preliminary discovery against Beat

214. Enares does not have the documents referred to in the three categories of documents in respect of which Enares seeks preliminary discovery orders against Beat. Enares requested those documents from Beat shortly before commencing these proceedings, but Beat has declined to provide them. [191]

     191. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraphs 67–68; Second Thompson Affidavit, paragraph 61; letter from Arnold Bloch Leibler to Baker McKenzie dated 9 November 2022 (Exhibit 1, pp 1769–1771).

215. I accept Enares’ submission that it has made reasonable inquiries for the purpose of UCPR r 5.3.

216. There is no suggestion that Beat may not be in possession of the three categories of documents in respect of which Enares seeks orders for preliminary discovery against it.

217. The three categories of documents in respect of which Enares seeks orders for preliminary discovery against Beat are helpfully identified in a schedule annexed to Enares’ written submissions in reply dated 4 May 2023. Again, I have considered all of the parties’ written and oral submissions in relation to each category, irrespective of whether those submissions are expressly referred to in these reasons.

Category 10: Documents dated between 1 March 2021 and 30 June 2021 referring to the Churchill Offer and/or the Beat Offer

218. Category 10 overlaps with categories 2, 4, and 6, in respect of which Enares seeks an order for preliminary discovery against Moula.

219. There will be no order against Beat for preliminary discovery in respect of category 10, for the same reasons as I have explained above in relation to categories 2, 4, and 6. [192]

Category 11: Documents dated between 1 March 2021 and 30 June 2021 relating to the purpose for the Beat Offer being made (including whether a purpose was to prevent Moula from accepting the Churchill Offer), and relating to the decision to withdraw the Beat Offer (or otherwise recording why the Beat Offer did not complete)

192. See [185], [193]–[194], and [199] above.

220. In opposing any order for preliminary discovery in respect of category 11, Beat relied primarily on the submissions that I have recorded and rejected at [149]–[152] above.

221. Beat submitted in the alternative that, if any order for preliminary discovery were to be made in respect of category 11, then the order should be limited to documents of the kind described recording (rather than relating to) the purpose for the Beat Offer being made. I accept the submission that the words “relating to” in this context are too broad, and extend proposed category 11 beyond the scope of documents reasonably required by Enares to decide whether to commence proceedings, having regard to the extensive information that is already in its possession and to the further information that Enares will receive from Moula by way of preliminary discovery of the category 5 documents referred to above. [193] Category 11, being limited to documents recording the purpose for making the Beat Offer, will pick up any such documents created by and in the possession of Beat, whereas category 5 is unlikely to capture any such documents. I am satisfied that Enares reasonably requires such documents as may exist within that more confined version of category 11 to decide whether to commence proceedings. For the avoidance of doubt, having regard to the matters relied on by Enares as giving rise to the potential Derivative Claim and the potential Oppression Claim, I am not satisfied that Enares reasonably requires documents recording or relating to the reasons why the Beat Offer was withdrawn or did not complete.

     193. See [196] above.

222. There will be an order pursuant to UCPR r 5.3 requiring Beat to give discovery to Enares of all documents that are or have been in Beat’s possession dated between 1 March 2021 and 30 June 2021 that record the purpose for the Beat Offer being made.

Category 12: All documents recording communications between any director or representative of Moula and/or representatives of Beat and/or representatives of Liberty or Secure Funding between 1 September 2021 to date referring to the Forbearance and Funding Deed, the Confirmation Letter and/or the Second Confirmation Letter

223. There will be no order against Beat for preliminary discovery in respect of category 12, for the same reasons as I have explained above in relation to category 9. [194]

     194. See [210]–[212] above.

Enares’ alternative application under s 247A

224. If and to the extent that its application for preliminary discovery against Moula is not successful, Enares seeks an order under s 247A of the Corporations Act permitting it to inspect the category 1 to 9 documents referred to above. The application under s 247A is therefore relevant only to categories 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 above.

225. Section 247A of the Corporations Act relevantly provides:

“(1)   On application by a member of a company or registered scheme, the Court may make an order:

(a)   authorising the applicant to inspect books of the company or scheme; or

(b)   authorising another person (whether a member or not) to inspect books of the company or scheme on the applicant’s behalf.

The Court may only make the order if it is satisfied that the applicant is acting in good faith and that the inspection is to be made for a proper purpose.”

226. As Enares accepted, it bears the onus of establishing that it is acting in good faith and that the proposed inspection is for a proper purpose. It is well established that this is a composite notion, and the Court will determine objectively whether it has been demonstrated. [195]

     195. In the matter of Sirrah Pty Limited [2017] NSWSC 1683 at [21]–[28] (Black J) and the authorities there referred to; Enares Pty Ltd v Nimble Money Ltd (2022) 294 FCR 31; [2022] FCAFC 126 at [34]–[50] (Farrell, Markovic, and Derrington JJ) and the authorities there referred to.

227. The matters relied on by Enares as demonstrating that it is acting in good faith in seeking to inspect the documents in categories 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 above, and that its proposed inspection of those documents is for a proper purpose, are that Enares may be entitled to make the Derivative Claim, the Contract Claim, and the Oppression Claim, “but seeks further documents to enable it to make an informed decision about whether or not to commence proceedings against Moula and/or Beat”. Enares also submitted that recent events have seen a significant dilution of its shareholding in Moula, and a sharp decline in the value of those shares. Enares submitted that it is reasonable for it to “wish to investigate those events in more detail and ensure that it has done all it can to investigate those events in more detail”. [196]

     196. Enares’ written submissions dated 4 May 2023, paragraphs 65–66.

228. For the reasons already explained above in relation to preliminary discovery, I reject Enares’ submission that the objective purpose of the proposed inspection of the documents in categories 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 is for Enares to make an informed decision about whether or not to commence proceedings. The extensive information that Enares already has, together with the category 1, 3, and 5 documents that it will receive by way of preliminary discovery, are sufficient for Enares to make that decision on an informed basis.

229. The events that have resulted in the dilution and diminution in value of Enares’ shareholding in Moula are extensively documented in the information that is already in the possession of Enares. At least some of those events have their genesis in the terms of the Shareholders Agreement to which Enares became a party when it first acquired shares in Moula and/or in the Convertible Note Deed pursuant to which Enares acquired the 2020 Notes. Enares has not identified any investigative step that it wishes to take in order to protect its rights as a Shareholder, or its investment in Moula, other than making a decision whether to commence the proposed proceedings and acting accordingly.

230. For all of those reasons, Enares has not discharged its onus of demonstrating that, in all the circumstances of this case and having regard to the extensive information that it already possesses and the further documents that it will receive by way of preliminary discovery, it is acting in good faith in seeking to inspect the documents in categories 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9, and that its proposed inspection of those documents is for a proper purpose.

231. For those reasons, there will be an order dismissing prayers 5 to 7 of the further amended originating process.

Order sought for the benefit of Neil Sutton Super

232. As noted at [144] above, Mr Neil Sutton is a director and shareholder of Enares, and a director and shareholder of Neil Sutton Super, which owns approximately 2.46 per cent of the issued shares of Moula on trust for the Sutton Family Superannuation Fund. Neil Sutton Super was also a Noteholder under the Convertible Note Deed. [197]

     197. First Thompson Affidavit, paragraphs 22–25; Company Extracts (Exhibit 1, pp 1575–1605, 1711–1747); List of subscribers for unsecured convertible notes (Exhibit 1, p 407).

233. In his first affidavit affirmed, Mr Thompson deposed that: [198]

“As a result of the connection between Enares and Sutton Family Superannuation and commonality of shareholding, noteholding and officers, the Originating Process seeks an order to enable Sutton Family Superannuation, and its directors and advisers to have access to and to use the documents obtained as a result of these proceedings, if they are successful, for the purposes of considering and potentially prosecuting proceedings against one or more of the defendants.”

198. First Thompson affidavit, paragraph 25.

234. Enares seeks an order that such documents as are ordered to made available to it be permitted to be disclosed by Enares to officers or members of Neil Sutton Super, and to any solicitor retained by Neil Sutton Super. The sole basis for the order was said to be that it merely recognises that it would be “artificial” to require Mr Thompson, Mr Neil Sutton and Mr Scott Sutton—each of whom are officers of Enares and of Neil Sutton Super—to “divorce from their minds matters learnt as directors of Enares in relation to Moula” when considering whether Neil Sutton Super should commence proceedings against Moula or Beat.

235. I accept Moula’s submission that it is not appropriate to make such an order on that basis in circumstances where Neil Sutton Super is not a co-plaintiff in these proceedings, there is no evidence about whether Neil Sutton Super may have a claim and is considering commencing proceedings against Moula and/or Beat, and there is no evidence relevant to whether Neil Sutton Super would be acting in good faith and for a proper purpose if it were permitted to inspect documents in respect of which (hypothetically) an order had been made in favour of Enares under s 247A of the Corporations Act. The evidence discloses that there are four directors of Neil Sutton Super (Mr Neil Sutton, Ms Jade Sutton, Mr Scott Sutton, and Mr Benjamin Sutton), and that the company has two secretaries (Mr Thompson and Mr Neil Sutton). [199] There is no evidence that Mr Neil Sutton, Mr Scott Sutton, and/or Mr Thompson are (individually or collectively) the controlling mind of Neil Sutton Super. As Moula submitted, there is no reason why Mr Neil Sutton, Mr Scott Sutton, and/or Mr Thompson cannot be expected to take care not to disclose to Neil Sutton Super information that is disclosed to them in their capacity as directors of Enares pursuant to orders for preliminary discovery in these proceedings.

     199. Exhibit 1, pp 1738–1739.

236. For those reasons, there will be an order dismissing prayer 8 of the further amended originating process.

Conclusion

237. The parties are directed to bring in short minutes of order giving effect to these reasons within 14 days, including annexing the form of confidentiality undertaking to be signed by recipients of the category 1 documents referred to above.

238. The short minutes of order should also address the question of the costs of these proceedings, and the costs to be incurred by Moula and Beat in complying with the preliminary discovery orders. [200] To the extent that there is disagreement between the parties in relation to costs, the short minutes should indicate the costs orders for which each party contends.

**********

200. UCPR, r 5.8.

Endnotes