Re Investa Listed Funds Management Ltd as responsible entity for the Armstrong Jones Office Fund and the Prime Credit Property Trust

Investa Listed Funds Management Ltd, as the responsible entity for the Armstrong Jones Office Fund and the Prime Credit Property Trust, sought judicial advice from the Supreme Court of New South Wales under section 63 of the Trustee Act 1925 (NSW). The central issue was whether the proposed changes to the trust schemes were within the powers of alteration provided by the constitutions of the managed investment schemes and section 601GC of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The applicant sought clarification on whether it would be justified in convening extraordinary general meetings of unitholders to implement these proposed trust schemes.

The court was required to determine if the proposed amendments to the trust schemes were permissible under the governing documents and the relevant statutory framework. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the changes were consistent with the powers of alteration conferred by the constitutions of the managed investment schemes and section 601GC of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The court also needed to consider whether there were any other legal impediments that would prevent the responsible entity from convening extraordinary general meetings of unitholders to implement the proposed changes.

The court concluded that the proposed amendments to the trust schemes were within the powers of alteration conferred by the constitutions of the managed investment schemes and section 601GC of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). It was determined that the responsible entity would be justified in convening extraordinary general meetings of unitholders to implement the proposed trust schemes. The court found that there were no legal impediments to the proposed changes and that they were consistent with the governing documents and statutory framework.

The final orders of the court were that Investa Listed Funds Management Ltd, as the responsible entity, would be justified in convening extraordinary general meetings of unitholders to implement the proposed trust schemes. The court's advice was that the proposed amendments were within the powers of alteration and did not contravene any legal requirements.