Golden Gate Petroleum Ltd (ABN 090 074 785), in the matter of Golden Gate Petroleum Ltd (ABN 090 074 785) [2010] FCA 40
Citation:
Golden Gate Petroleum Ltd (ABN 090 074 785), in the matter of Golden Gate Petroleum Ltd (ABN 090 074 785) [2010] FCA 40
Parties:
IN THE MATTER OF GOLDEN GATE PETROLEUM (ABN 090 074 785)
GOLDEN GATE PETROLEUM LTD (ABN 090 074 785)
File number:
WAD 9 of 2010
Judge:
MCKERRACHER J
Date of judgment:
22 January 2010
Catchwords:
CORPORATIONS - offers of sale and sale of placement options - obligation of disclosure-failure to disclose - acquisition of shares invalid - seeking declaratory relief - each case to be decided on its merits - applicant acted honestly - no substantial injustice to third parties - declaratory relief granted
IN THE MATTER OF GOLDEN GATE PETROLEUM LTD (ABN 090 074 785)
GOLDEN GATE PETROLEUM LTD (ABN 090 074 785) Plaintiff
JUDGE:
MCKERRACHER J
DATE OF ORDER:
22 JANUARY 2010
WHERE MADE:
PERTH
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to section 1322(4)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ("Act") it is declared that any offer for sale or sale of the quoted securities being 65,381,808 options, quoted on 8 December 2009, and 16,000,000 options, quoted on 24 December 2009, to acquire ordinary shares in the Plaintiff exercisable at 8 cents and expiring on 31 August 2012 ("Securities") during the period after the date of their issue on 8 December and 24 December 2009 respectively until 12 January 2010 is not invalid by reason of the failure of notices, purportedly issued by the plaintiff on 8 and 24 December 2009 pursuant to section 708A(5)(e) of…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Re Golden Gate Petroleum Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Re Golden Gate Petroleum Ltd [2010] FCA 40
Case
[2010] FCA 40
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Golden Gate Petroleum Ltd, the respondents sought an order for the cancellation of options issued by Golden Gate, as well as the imposition of pecuniary penalties and declarations concerning their legal obligations. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issues revolved around whether the issuance of certain options by Golden Gate Petroleum Ltd complied with the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and whether the company had accurately represented the conditions under which these securities could be offered for sale.
The court examined the timeline of events surrounding the issuance of the options and determined that Golden Gate had indeed issued options in breach of s 708A(5) of the Corporations Act. The court found that the issuance of the options occurred less than three months after their initial listing on the ASX, which was not compliant with the statutory provisions. Despite Golden Gate's contentions that it could have lodged prospectuses or delayed the issuance, the court held that these arguments were not sufficient to excuse the non-compliance. The representations made to the ASX were also deemed inaccurate, as they suggested that the sale of the options would not require disclosure, contrary to the statutory obligations.
The court ruled in favour of the respondents, granting relief substantially as sought. The orders included the cancellation of the issued options, the imposition of pecuniary penalties, and declarations affirming the legal obligations of Golden Gate. The decision underscored the importance of compliance with the Corporations Act and the consequences of inaccurate representations to regulatory bodies and the market.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
For the reasons which follow, relief was granted substantially in the form sought.BACKGROUND On 4 September 2009, Golden Gate issued a prospectus for a rights issue (Rights Issue) of up to 185,128,519 new shares in Golden Gate and 92,564,260 options with an exercise price of 8 cents and an expiry date of 31 August 2012 (GGPO). Following acceptances of offers in the Rights Issue, 42,794,130 GGPO were issued and listed on the ASX on 6 October 2009. On 30 November 2009 Golden Gate held its Annual General Meeting. At that meeting its shareholders approved the issue of a further 65,392,933 options in the same class as the GGPO pursuant to various agreements entered into between August and October 2009 (AGM Placement Options). The AGM Placement Options comprised:(a)20,000,000 to be issued to sophisticated investors pursuant to a placement agreement entered into in August 2009;(b)7,150,000 to be issued to sophisticated investors pursuant to a placement agreement entered into with Novus Capital Limited (Novus Capital) on 23 October 2009;(c)5,196,094 to be issued to certain convertible note holders as part of an agreement to satisfy a debt owed to the note holders; and(d)33,046,839 to be issued to other convertible note holders as part of an agreement to extinguish their notes: On 8 December 2009 Golden Gate issued 65,381,808 of the AGM Placement Options and these were listed on the ASX. On 21 December 2009 Golden Gate entered into a further placement agreement with Novus Capital pursuant to which it agreed to issue up to 16,000,000 options in the same class as GGPO to sophisticated investors (December Placement Options). On 24 December 2009 Golden Gate issued the December Placement Options and these were listed on the ASX. In the Appendices 3B lodged by Golden Gate with the ASX seeking the listing of the AGM Placement Options and the December Placement Options (together Placement Options) Golden Gate:(a)gave a warranty to the ASX to the effect that an ‘offer of the securities for sale within 12 months after their issue will not require disclosure under section 707(3) or section 1012C of the Corporations Act’; and(b)gave a s 708A notice which makes a representation to the effect that offers for sale of the securities referred to in the Appendix 3B would not require disclosure under s 707(3) as these would fall within the exemption in s 708A(5): Each Appendix 3B, including both the representations referred to above, was published on the ASX website. As will be evident from the statutory provisions which follow, to the extent these representations concerned the Placement Options they were inaccurate. The issue of the Placement Options did not comply with s 708A(5) because the issue of the Placement Options (8 and 24 December 2009) occurred less than 3 months after they were first listed on the ASX (6 October 2009). However, Golden Gate contends that:(a)While it was not possible for the sale of the Placement Options to fall within the exemption in s 708A(5), it was open to Golden Gate to lodge prospectuses with ASIC on or about 8 and 24 December 2009, before any of the Placement Options were offered for sale, and, thus, bring any offer for sale taking place after those dates within the exemption in s 708A(11); or(b)Golden Gate could have delayed issue of the Placement Options until after 6 January 2010 and given a s 708A notice in compliance with s 708A(5).