Re Healthscope Ltd

Case [2019] FCA 542


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Healthscope Limited, in the matter of Healthscope Limited [2019] FCA 542

File number(s): VID 253 of 2019
Judge(s): BEACH J
Date of judgment: 16 April 2019
Date of publication of reasons: 18 April 2019
Catchwords: CORPORATIONS – members’ scheme of arrangement – first court hearing – order sought under s 411(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – separate classes of members – whether there should be separate scheme meetings – relevance of benefit to one class not qua shareholder – relevance of benefit not from scheme terms per se – performance risk – break fee – reverse break fee – exclusivity arrangements – employee incentive arrangements – conditional take-over bid – one transaction booklet with scheme explanatory statement and takeover material including bidder’s statement and target’s statement – exercise of discretion – order made for convening of meeting
Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Pts 5.1, 6.5, ss 256C(4), 411(1),(2),(4), and (17), 412(1)

Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth) reg 5.1.01, Sch 8

Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth) rr 2.13, 2.15, 3.4

Cases cited:

Amcor Limited, in the matter of Amcor Limited [2019] FCA 346

First Pacific Advisors LLC v Boart Longyear Ltd (2017) 320 FLR 78

In the matter of Pulse Health Limited [2017] NSWSC 651

In the matter of Westfield Corporation Limited [2018] NSWSC 584

Re APN News & Media Ltd (2007) 62 ACSR 400

Re Boart Longyear Ltd (2017) 121 ACSR 328

Re Foster’s Group Limited [2011] VSC 93

Re Foundation Healthcare Ltd (2002) 42 ACSR 252

Re Opes Prime Stockbroking Ltd (No 2) (2009) 179 FCR 20

Re Skilled Group Ltd (No 1) (2015) 113 ACSR 525

Sovereign Life Assurance Co v Dodd [1892] 2 QB 573

Tronex Limited, in the matter of Tronex Limited [2019] FCA 312

Date of hearing: 16 April 2019
Registry: Victoria
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 192
Counsel for the Plaintiff: Mr P D Crutchfield QC and Mr B K Holmes
Solicitor for the Plaintiff: Herbert Smith Freehills
Counsel for the Intervener: Mr G J Ahern and Mr R J Boadle
Solicitor for the Intervener: Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Counsel for the Interested Parties: Mr N Young QC and Mr N De Young
Solicitor for the Interested Parties: King & Wood Mallesons

ORDERS

VID 253 of 2019

IN THE MATTER OF HEALTHSCOPE LIMITED

BETWEEN:

HEALTHSCOPE LIMITED ACN 144 840 639

Plaintiff

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION

Intervener

ANZ HOSPITALS PTY LTD (ACN 631 014 938)

Interested Party

ANZ HOSPITAL TOPCO LTD (ACN 631 014 965)

Interested Party

BCP VIG HOLDINGS L.P.

Interested Party

JUDGE:

BEACH J

DATE OF ORDER:

16 APRIL 2019

OTHER MATTERS:

A.The Court notes that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) was provided with at least 14 days’ notice of the hearing of this application.

B.The Court is satisfied that AISC has had a reasonable opportunity to:

(a)examine the terms of the proposed scheme of arrangement to which the…

Continue reading Re Healthscope Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Re Healthscope Ltd [2019] FCA 542
Case
[2019] FCA 542
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Healthscope Ltd sought orders under section 411(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for the convening of a meeting of its shareholders to consider and vote on a proposed scheme of arrangement involving the acquisition of all of its ordinary shares by Brookfield BidCo, with Brookfield LP concurrently proposing to acquire all of the ordinary shares in Healthscope by way of a takeover bid. The dispute concerned whether separate meetings should be convened for different classes of members. The primary legal issue before the court was whether separate meetings should be held for different classes of Healthscope members given the proposed scheme. The court considered the benefits to each class of member, the nature of those benefits, and whether they were derived from the scheme terms. The court also took into account the performance risk, break fee, reverse break fee, exclusivity arrangements, and employee incentive arrangements. The court exercised its discretion under section 411(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and ordered that Healthscope convene a single meeting of its shareholders to consider and vote on the proposed scheme. The court found that there was no element of unfairness or other undesirable feature in the scheme terms that would preclude its approval, and that the scheme was fit for consideration by the members. The court also found that the scheme meeting could be conducted as a single meeting, with one transaction booklet and scheme explanatory statement, as the members would have sufficient information to make an informed decision. The court made orders convening the scheme meeting and setting out the procedures for convening and conducting the meeting, including the use of a single transaction booklet and scheme explanatory statement. The court also made orders for the publication of a notice of the scheme meeting in The Australian newspaper.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to s 411(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act), the Plaintiff convene and hold a meeting (Scheme Meeting) of the holders of ordinary shares in the Plaintiff (Scheme Shareholders):

(a) to consider, and, if thought fit, to approve (with or without modification) the scheme of arrangement (Scheme) proposed to be made between the Plaintiff and its shareholders, the terms of which are as set out in Annexure B to these orders; and

(b) to be held at Mayfair Ballroom, Grand Hyatt Melbourne, 123 Collins Street, Melbourne, Victoria on Wednesday, 22 May 2019 commencing at 10.00 am (Melbourne time).

2. The Scheme Meeting be convened by sending on or before 23 April 2019:

(a) in the case of Scheme Shareholders who have nominated an electronic address for the purposes of receiving electronic copies of shareholder communications (including notices of meetings and proxy forms but excluding annual reports and shareholder statements) (Email Shareholders), an email substantially in the form of one of the two emails at Annexure IAP4 to the affidavit Ingrid Anne Player dated 11 April 2019 and which contains links to:

(i) an electronic copy of a document substantially in the form of the transaction booklet, a draft of which is at Annexure RAL11 to the affidavit of Rodd Ashton Levy dated 15 April 2019 (Transaction Booklet), in a form that allows text within the copy to be searched by a computer, and which contains, among other things, the Notice of Scheme Meeting at Annexure E; and

(ii) an online portal or website that is accessible by the shareholder and which enables the shareholder to lodge their proxy and voting instructions online;

(b) in the case of Scheme Shareholders whose registered address is in Australia (excluding any Email Shareholders), the following documents by ordinary post addressed to the relevant addresses recorded in the Plaintiff’s register:

(i) a document substantially in the form of the Transaction Booklet (which contains, among other things, the Notice of Scheme Meeting at Annexure E);

(ii) a personalised proxy form for the Scheme Meeting, substantially in the form of Annexure RAL8 to the affidavit of Rodd Ashton Levy dated 12 April 2019 (Proxy Form); and

(iii) a reply paid envelope for the return of the Proxy Form; and

(c) in the case of Scheme Shareholders with registered addresses outside Australia (excluding any Email Shareholders), the following documents by airmail or international courier service addressed to the relevant addresses recorded in the Plaintiff’s register:

(i) a document substantially in the form of the Transaction Booklet (which contains, among other things, the Notice of Scheme Meeting at Annexure E);

(ii) a personalised Proxy Form; and

(iii) a return envelope for the return of the Proxy Form.

3. Subject to these Orders, the Scheme Meeting be convened, held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of:

(a) Part 2G.2 of the Act (save for any applicable replaceable rule) that apply to a meeting of the Plaintiff’s members; and

(b) the Plaintiff’s constitution that apply in relation to meetings of members and that are not inconsistent with Part 2G.2 of the Act.

4. Voting on the resolution to approve the Scheme is to be conducted by way of a poll.

5. A Proxy Form in respect of the Scheme Meeting will be valid and effective if, and only if, it is completed and delivered in accordance with its terms by 4.00 pm (Melbourne time) on 20 May 2019.

6. Ms Paula Dwyer, or failing her, Mr Antoni Cipa, be Chair of the Scheme Meeting.

7. The Chair of the Scheme Meeting shall have the power to adjourn the meeting to such time, date and place as she or he considers appropriate.

8. Compliance with rule 2.15 of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth) (Rules), except insofar as it operates to apply rule 75-15(2) of the Insolvency Practice Rules (Corporations) 2016 (Cth) to the Scheme Meeting, is dispensed with.

9. Compliance with rule 3.4 and Form 6 of the Rules is dispensed with.

10. The Plaintiff publish in The Australian newspaper once on or before 15 May 2019 an advertisement substantially in the form of Annexure A to these Orders.

11. The further hearing of the Originating Process is adjourned to a hearing before the Honourable Justice Beach on 24 May 2019 at 9.30 am (Melbourne time) or as soon thereafter as the business of the Court allows.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

ANNEXURE A

Notice of Second Court Hearing

_________________________________________________

Notice of hearing to approve compromise or arrangement

TO all the members of Healthscope Limited (ACN 144 840 639) (Healthscope)

TAKE NOTICE that at 9:30 am on 24 May 2019 the Federal Court of Australia (Victorian Registry) at 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000 will hear an application by Healthscope seeking the approval of a compromise or arrangement between Healthscope and its members if agreed to by a resolution to be considered, and, if thought fit, passed at a meeting of such members to be held on 22 May 2019 at Mayfair Ballroom, Grand Hyatt Melbourne, 123 Collins Street, Melbourne, Victoria, commencing at 10:00am (Melbourne time).

If you wish to oppose the approval of the compromise or arrangement, you must file and serve on Healthscope a notice of appearance, in the prescribed form, together with any affidavit on which you wish to rely at the hearing. The notice of appearance and affidavit must be served on Healthscope at its address for service by 5.00 pm on 23 May 2019.

The address for service of Healthscope is: c/o Herbert Smith Freehills, Level 43, 101 Collins

Street, Melbourne VIC 3000 (Ref: Ruth Overington).

ANNEXURE B

Scheme

_________________________________________________

[The order entered is available on the Commonwealth Courts Portal, which attaches the Scheme]

Background

Background to the litigation

For the following reasons, earlier this week I made the orders sought by Healthscope.BACKGROUND Let me explain some of the background. On 1 February 2019, Healthscope entered into an implementation deed with Brookfield BidCo, which at the time had the name VIG Bidco Pty Ltd, and Brookfield LP (the implementation deed). In accordance with the implementation deed, Brookfield BidCo proposed to acquire all of the ordinary shares in Healthscope by way of the proposed Scheme, and Brookfield LP concurrently proposed to offer to acquire all of the ordinary shares in Healthscope by way of the takeover bid (the transaction). Brookfield Bidco is an unlisted Australian proprietary company. It is a special purpose company that was incorporated for the purpose of holding 100% of the shares in Healthscope post implementation of the Scheme. Brookfield BidCo has not commenced trading or conducted business, and does not own any assets or have any liabilities, other than in connection with its incorporation, the entry into of transaction documents in connection with the transaction and the taking of such other actions as are necessary to facilitate the transaction. ANZ Hospitals Senior Holdco Pty Ltd (Brookfield Senior HoldCo) and ANZ Hospitals Midco Pty Ltd (Brookfield MidCo) are also special purpose companies incorporated for the purpose of indirectly holding all of the shares in Healthscope. Brookfield Senior HoldCo and Brookfield MidCo are unlisted, Australian proprietary companies that have not commenced trading or conducted business and do not own any assets or have any liabilities other than in connection with their incorporation and the taking of such other actions as are necessary to facilitate the implementation of the transaction. ANZ Hospitals Topco Limited (Brookfield HoldCo) is a special purpose company that was incorporated for the purposes of indirectly holding all of the shares in Brookfield BidCo and issuing Brookfield HoldCo class B shares to Healthscope shareholders who make an election to receive consideration in the form of Brookfield HoldCo class B shares as part of the Scheme. Brookfield HoldCo is an unlisted, Australian public company that has not commenced trading or conducted business, and does not own any assets or have any liabilities, other than in connection with its incorporation, the entry into of the transaction documents in connection with the Scheme and the taking of such other actions as are necessary to facilitate the Scheme, and actions in connection with issuing Brookfield HoldCo class B shares to Healthscope shareholders who make a scrip election. Brookfield HoldCo indirectly wholly owns Brookfield BidCo through Brookfield Senior HoldCo and Brookfield MidCo. Brookfield Capital Partners V (CDN II) GP LP, a limited partnership formed in Canada, directly owns 1% of Brookfield HoldCo and Brookfield LP, a limited partnership formed in the Cayman Islands, directly owns 99% of Brookfield Holdco. Brookfield LP is indirectly owned by “Brookfield Funds”, being a series of foreign limited partnerships which are managed and controlled by subsidiaries of Brookfield Asset Management Inc. That company is an alternative asset management company with approximately US$350 billion of assets under management listed on the New York Stock Exchange, the Euronext and the Toronto Stock Exchange.

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

In summary I will not order separate meetings.IS THE SCHEME FIT FOR CONSIDERATION? In my view, the Scheme is fit for consideration by the proposed meeting. Now the question whether to accept particular consideration for shares is a commercial matter for the members of Healthscope to assess. And they ought not be prevented from having the opportunity to do so provided that I can be satisfied that they are acting on sufficient information and with time to consider what they are voting on. But of course, I am required to scrutinise the terms of the Scheme to satisfy myself that there is no element of unfairness in or other undesirable feature of those terms that would be likely to preclude the approval of the Scheme if it came before me for approval. And this is so notwithstanding the unanimous favourable recommendation and voting intention statements from all directors of Healthscope and the favourable expression of opinion in the independent expert’s report. In the present case relevant to this question of fitness, Healthscope has drawn my attention to the following particular features of the Scheme which warrant discussion.(a)Performance risk.(b)Break fee and reverse break fee.(c)Exclusivity arrangements.(d)Employee incentive arrangements.(e)Section 411(17). Let me discuss each in turn.(a) Performance risk Clause 4.2(a) of the Scheme provides that the obligation of Scheme shareholders to transfer the Scheme shares to Brookfield BidCo on the implementation date is subject to the obligations of Brookfield BidCo to provide the Scheme consideration to the Scheme shareholders on the implementation date in accordance with cl 5 of the Scheme. Furthermore, the implementation deed requires that Brookfield HoldCo and Brookfield BidCo execute a deed poll under which they covenant in favour of Scheme shareholders to perform the obligations attributed to them under the implementation deed and the Scheme. The implementation deed required that the executed deed poll be in the form of attachment B to the implementation deed, or such other form as agreed in writing between Healthscope, Brookfield HoldCo and Brookfield BidCo. Such a deed poll has now been executed, but the deed poll has been amended in some minor respects since the version attached to the implementation deed. These modifications have been agreed between the parties to the implementation deed. In the event that the Scheme becomes effective, each of Brookfield HoldCo and Brookfield BidCo undertake in cl 3.1 of the deed poll to, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme, deposit or procure the deposit of the aggregate Scheme cash consideration into a trust account nominated by Healthscope for the purposes of receiving the aggregate Scheme cash consideration by no later than one business day before the implementation date, issue or procure the issuing of the Scheme scrip consideration (following the application of the scaleback arrangements) to each Scheme shareholder or custodian entitled to receive the Scheme scrip consideration on the implementation date, and undertake or procure the undertaking of all other actions attributed to any of them under the Scheme.