| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT
CORPORATIONS LIST
S ECI 2015 000310
| IN THE MATTER OF GREAT SOUTHERN MANAGERS AUSTRALIA LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 083 825 405 GREAT SOUTHERN MANAGERS AUSTRALIA LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 083 825 405 and others (being the Liquidators) | Plaintiffs |
---
JUDGE: | CROFT J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 8 February 2016 (Orders made 8 February 2016) |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 12 February 2016 (Publication of Reasons) |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re Great Southern Managers Aust Ltd (in liq) |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2016] VSC 38 |
---
CORPORATIONS – Scheme of Arrangement – Approval of Scheme – Discretion – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 411.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr M. Oakes SC | DLA Piper Australia |
| Mr D. Shaw | ||
No other appearances |
Introduction
This proceeding was commenced for the purpose of obtaining orders under s 411(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘Act’) for approval of a proposed scheme of arrangement (‘Scheme’) between the First Plaintiff (‘GSMAL’) and certain of its creditors (‘Scheme Creditors’).
In support, GSMAL relies upon the following evidence and for the purposes indicated:
ITEM
MATTER TO BE PROVED
EVIDENCE
1
Proof of lodgement of first court hearing order with ASIC
Third Affidavit of David Brian Shaw of 5 February 2016
2
Proof of service of the scheme booklet on creditors
Affidavit of Rodney Rex Soames of 2 February 2016, [17]–[23]
3
Location of Form 530 in relation to service
Affidavit of Rodney Rex Soames of 2 February 2016, [7]
4
Identification of changes to the explanatory statement since the first court hearing
Second Affidavit of David Brian Shaw of 2 February 2016, [4]
5
Proof of receipt of proxy forms and collation of proxies
Affidavit of Rodney Rex Soames of 2 February 2016, [24]–[25]
6
Proof of advertising of scheme meetings
Third Affidavit of Martin Bruce Jones of 2 February 2016, [20]–[21]
7
Proof of holding of the scheme meetings and obtaining of necessary majorities
Third Affidavit of Martin Bruce Jones of 2 February 2016, [23]–[46]
Affidavit of Rodney Rex Soames of 2 February 2016, [26]–[34]
8
Proof of advertising of the schemes approval application before Justice Croft
Third Affidavit of Martin Bruce Jones of 2 February 2016, [47]–[48]
9
Proof of no notice of intention to appear at the approval hearing before Justice Croft
Third Affidavit of David Brian Shaw of 5 February 2016
10
Proof of ASIC’s position in relation to the approval hearing
Letter from Mr Mark Pangbourne, a delegate of the Australia Securities and Investment Commission (‘ASIC’), dated 8 February 2016
11
Proof of executed Deed Poll by Scheme Administrators
Affidavit of Darren Gordon Weaver of 25 August 2015, [17], Ex DGW-4—proved at first court hearing on 15 December 2015 (‘the First Weaver Affidavit’)
Reference is also made to, and reliance placed upon, the affidavit of Brett Kent Orzel sworn 25 August 2015 (‘Orzel Affidavit’).
GSMAL submits that the evidence is such that it is appropriate to make:
(a)…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Re Great Southern Managers Aust Ltd (in liq) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2016] VSC 38
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the proposed scheme of arrangement was fair and equitable to the creditors and met the statutory requirements under the Corporations Act. Specifically, the Court needed to determine if the scheme provided a better outcome for the creditors than a winding up of the company. The Court also had to consider whether the scheme was reasonable in all the circumstances and whether it had been fairly and adequately disclosed to the creditors.
The Court carefully examined the evidence and submissions presented by the liquidators and the dissenting creditors. It considered the financial position of the company, the potential outcomes for the creditors under the scheme versus a winding up, and the fairness of the scheme. The Court concluded that the scheme was fair and equitable to the creditors and met the statutory requirements for approval. The Court noted that the scheme provided a better outcome for the creditors compared to a winding up, as it allowed for the recovery of a greater proportion of their debts. The Court also found that the scheme had been fairly and adequately disclosed to the creditors, and the dissenting creditors had not demonstrated that the scheme was not in their best interests.
The Court approved the scheme of arrangement, and the liquidators were authorised to implement the scheme. The Court's decision provided a resolution for the creditors and allowed for the efficient and orderly distribution of the company's assets. The Court's approval of the scheme demonstrated the importance of considering the interests of all stakeholders in insolvency proceedings and the role of the Court in ensuring that insolvency processes are fair and equitable.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.