Re IXLA Ltd - [2007] VSC 573

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION
CORPORATIONS LIST

No. 9737 of 2007

IN THE MATTER OF

IXLA LIMITED
(ACN 006 501 168)

Plaintiff

---

JUDGE:	ROBSON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 December 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 December 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re IXLA Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 573

---

CORPORATIONS – Scheme of arrangement – Crystallisation of Capital Loss – Separate class meetings to be convened - Section 411(1) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr G J McEwen	Home Wilkinson Lowry

Re Gazelle Construction Pty Ltd (1984) 10 ACLR 140
FT Eastment & Sons Pty Ltd v Metal Roof Decking Supplies Pty Ltd (1977) 3 ACLR 69
Re Sonodyne International Ltd (1994) 15 ACSR 494
Re NRMA Insurance Ltd(No 1) (2000) 156 FLR 349

HIS HONOUR:

I have before me an application by IXLA Limited for orders that separate meetings of two classes of members of the plaintiff be convened and held for the purpose of considering a scheme of arrangement proposed by the plaintiff.

In particular the plaintiff seeks the following orders. That pursuant to s 411(1) of the Corporations Act 2001, the plaintiff convene meetings of –

(a) that class of members of the plaintiff comprising each person registered as the holder of not less of 50,000 ordinary shares issued by the plaintiff for the purpose of considering and if thought fit, agreeing with or without modification to a scheme or arrangement proposed to be made between the plaintiff and that class of its members, that is referred to as the first meeting; and

(b) that class of members of the plaintiff comprising each person registered as the holder of less than 50,000 ordinary shares issued by the plaintiff for the purpose of considering and if thought fit agreeing with or without modification the scheme or arrangement to be made between the plaintiff and that class of its members, that is referred to as the second scheme meeting.

IXLA is a company, listed on the ASX. Its shares have been suspended from trading since 2002. They are of no value. In essence, the scheme of arrangement, provides that members of the company transfer their shares to the covenanter (Brian Francis Dunkley a director of IXLA) on the basis that if Westan Limited is admitted to the official list of the ASX, the members will be issued Westan shares and all of Westan’s options.

IXLA shares are worthless and as such IXLA has a nil value. Westan will not acquire IXLA or any shareholding in IXLA. The proposed letter by the chairman of IXLA to the members details the substance of the scheme.

Dr Teh says that IXLA Limited was suspended from trading on the ASX on 16 September 2002. He says IXLA's financial statements have not been audited for the years ending 30 June 2002 through to 30 June 2007 and there is no prospect…

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 IXLA Ltd

Details

AGLC: Re IXLA Ltd [2007] VSC 573
Case: [2007] VSC 573
Decision Date: 13 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

IXLA Limited, a company incorporated in Australia, was the subject of a dispute involving the crystallisation of capital losses. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the legality of convening separate class meetings to approve a scheme of arrangement under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The primary contention was whether the company had the authority to hold distinct meetings for various classes of shareholders, as per the provisions of section 411(1) of the Act.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the company could lawfully convene separate meetings for different classes of shareholders to approve the scheme of arrangement, especially in light of the crystallisation of capital losses. The case hinged on the interpretation of section 411(1) of the Corporations Act, which stipulates that separate meetings may be called if the scheme affects different classes of shareholders differently. The court needed to determine if this provision allowed for the convening of separate meetings when capital losses were crystallised.

The court found that the company had the authority to convene separate class meetings under section 411(1) of the Corporations Act. The court's reasoning was grounded in the plain language of the statute, which explicitly permits the calling of separate meetings if the scheme impacts different classes in distinct ways. Given that the crystallisation of capital losses could have varying effects on different classes of shareholders, the court concluded that separate meetings were permissible. This decision was seen as a practical application of the statutory provision, allowing for tailored consideration of the scheme's implications on each class of shareholders.

The court's final orders affirmed the company's right to convene separate class meetings to approve the scheme of arrangement. This decision provided clarity for companies dealing with complex capital loss scenarios, ensuring that the statutory framework could be appropriately applied in such cases.

Orders