Re Memphasys Limited

Case [2022] WASC 269


JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   RE MEMPHASYS LIMITED; EX PARTE MEMPHASYS LIMITED [2022] WASC 269

CORAM:   STRK J

HEARD:   10 AUGUST 2022

DELIVERED          :   10 AUGUST 2022

PUBLISHED           :   22 AUGUST 2022

FILE NO/S:   COR 146 of 2022

MATTER:   IN THE MATTER OF MEMPHASYS LIMITED

EX PARTE

MEMPHASYS LIMITED

Plaintiff


Catchwords:

Corporations law - Securities - Failure to issue a valid notice pursuant to Australian Securities Investment Commission Class Order 09/425 - Shares issued pursuant to a share purchase plan - Multiple failures to issue a cleansing notice during the requisite period pursuant to s 708A(5)(e) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - Curative orders sought pursuant to s 1322 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - Declarations sought pursuant to s 1322(4)(a) and s 254E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - Declarations made - Ancillary relief granted

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 254E, s 707, s 708A, s 1322

Result:

Application granted

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : M Holler & J Moore

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Steinepreis Paganin

Cases referred to in decision:

Blaze Asset Pty Ltd v Target Energy Ltd [2009] FCA 698; (2009) 177 FCR 488

Ex Parte Archtis Ltd [2021] WASC 55

Ex Parte Imdex Ltd [2020] WASC 298

Metalicity Ltd [2020] WASC 387

Re Australian Dairy Farms Ltd [2018] FCA 2056

Re BPM Minerals Ltd [2021] WASC 329

Re Caeneus Minerals Ltd [2018] FCA 560

Re Classic Minerals Ltd [2018] FCA 2039

Re Cyprium Ltd [2022] WASC 241

Re Force Commodities Ltd [2019] FCA 1815; (2019) 140 ACSR 408

Re G8 Communications Ltd [2016] FCA 297; (2016) 112 ACSR 22

Re Golden Gate Petroleum Ltd [2010] FCA 40; (2010) 77 ACSR 17

Re Helios Energy Ltd [2017] FCA 840; (2017) 122 ACSR 174

Re ICandy Interactive Ltd [2018] FCA 533; (2018) 125 ACSR 369

Re Jaxsta Ltd [2018] WASC 390

Re Matador Mining Ltd [2021] WASC 132

Re Pilbara Minerals Ltd [2021] WASC 330

Re Poseidon Nickel Ltd [2018] FCA 1063; (2018) 129 ACSR 57

Re Silver Lake Resources Ltd [2012] FCA 32; (2012) 87 ACSR 436

Re Sprint Energy Ltd [2012] FCA 1354

Re Sprintex Ltd [2022] WASC 188

Re Wave Capital Ltd [2003] FCA 969; (2003) 47 ACSR 418

Weinstock v Beck [2013] HCA 14; (2013) 251 CLR 396

Whitehawk Ltd [2020] WASC 388

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Overview

Evidence filed in support of the application

The factual background

Failure to issue valid notices

Identification of the compliance failure

Investigation of the trading of the shares

No excluded information

Notice to holders of the shares

Notice to the ASX and ASIC

Capital raising

Investigation of all shares issued since 28 July 2015

Obligations on the company to issue valid notices in connection with a share issue

Part 6D.2 of the Corporations Act

ASIC Class Order 09/425

The power to grant the relief sought

Section 1322 of the Corporations Act

Section 254E of the Corporations Act

Disposition

Position…

Continue reading Re Memphasys Limited

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Re Memphasys Limited [2022] WASC 269
Case
[2022] WASC 269
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Memphasys Limited involved the Australian Securities Investment Commission (ASIC) and the company Memphasys Limited, primarily centred around the failure to issue a valid notice in accordance with ASIC Class Order 09/425. The dispute was brought before the Federal Court of Australia. ASIC sought declarations and other remedies against Memphasys Limited, asserting that the company had failed to issue the requisite cleansing notice as stipulated under section 708A(5)(e) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). This failure occurred multiple times concerning shares issued under a share purchase plan, leading to a series of regulatory concerns.

The court was tasked with determining whether Memphasys Limited's failures to issue the cleansing notices constituted breaches of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). It also had to consider whether the company's actions warranted the granting of curative orders under section 1322 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Furthermore, ASIC sought declarations under sections 1322(4)(a) and 254E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to clarify the legal status of the shares issued by Memphasys Limited. The court needed to assess whether the declarations sought by ASIC were appropriate and whether ancillary relief should be granted to rectify the situation.

In its decision, the Federal Court held that Memphasys Limited had indeed failed to issue the required cleansing notices, which constituted breaches of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The court found that these failures warranted the granting of curative orders under section 1322 of the Act. The court also made the declarations sought by ASIC, clarifying the legal status of the shares issued by the company. In addition, the court granted ancillary relief to address the situation comprehensively. This included ordering Memphasys Limited to take necessary actions to ensure compliance with the regulatory requirements going forward.

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.