Re Oklo Resources Ltd

Case [2022] WASC 289


JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   RE OKLO RESOURCES LTD; EX PARTE OKLO RESOURCES LTD [2022] WASC 289

CORAM:   HILL J

HEARD:   28 JULY 2022

DELIVERED          :   28 JULY 2022

FILE NO/S:   COR 131 of 2022

MATTER:   IN THE MATTER OF OKLO RESOURCES LTD

EX PARTE

OKLO RESOURCES LTD

Plaintiff

B2GOLD CORP

Interested Party


Catchwords:

Corporations law - Scheme of arrangement - Application for orders convening scheme meeting under s 411(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - Whether requirements to order scheme meeting are satisfied - Orders made convening scheme meeting

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 411(1), s 412(1)(a), s 1319
Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth) sch 8
Supreme Court (Corporations) (WA) Rules 2004 (WA) r 3.2

Result:

Orders made convening scheme meeting

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : A J Papamatheos & C E McKay
Interested Party : J Y Wang

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Thomson Geer - Perth
Interested Party : King & Wood Mallesons

Cases referred to in decision:

Re Amcom Telecommunications Ltd [2015] FCA 341

Re APN News & Media Ltd [2007] FCA 770; (2007) 62 ACSR 400

Re APN Property Group Ltd and APN RE Ltd [2021] VSC 389

Re Asaleo Care Ltd [2021] FCA 406

Re CannPal Animal Therapeutics Ltd [2021] WASC 37

Re CSR Ltd [2010] FCAFC 34; (2010) 183 FCR 358

Re David Jones Ltd [No 2] [2014] FCA 720; (2014) 101 ACSR 381

Re Doray Minerals Ltd [2019] WASC 57

Re DUET Management Company 1 Ltd [2013] NSWSC 817; (2013) 95 ACSR 34

Re Excelsior Gold Ltd [2018] FCA 2064

Re Hills Motorway Ltd [2002] NSWSC 897; (2002) 43 ACSR 101

Re Investa Properties Ltd [2007] FCA 1104

Re Kangaroo Resources Ltd [2018] WASC 327

Re Macquarie Private Capital A Ltd [2008] NSWSC 323

Re Nusantara Resources Ltd [2021] WASC 334

Re Nzuri Copper Ltd [2019] WASC 189

Re Opes Prime Stockbroking Ltd [2009] FCA 813; (2009) 179 FCR 20

Re Pacific Energy Ltd [2019] WASC 443

Re Palladium Group Holdings Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1123

Re PetroNor E&P Ltd [2021] WASC 426

Re Piedmont Lithium Ltd [2021] WASC 76

Re Saracen Mineral Holdings Ltd [2020] WASC 483

Re Scarborough Equities Ltd [No 2] [2009] FCA 484

Re SRG Ltd [2018] FCA 1092

Re Swick Mining Services Ltd [2022] WASC 79

Re Vimy Resources Ltd [2022] WASC 233

Re Webster Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1907

Re Wesfarmers Ltd [2018] WASC 308

Re Western Areas Ltd [2022] WASC 193

HILL J:

  1. The plaintiff, Oklo Resources Limited (Oklo) is an Australian public company listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX).  On 26 May 2022, Oklo entered into a Scheme Implementation Deed (SID) with B2Gold Corp (a company incorporated in British Columbia, Canada) (B2Gold), which was announced to the ASX on the same date.[1]  It is proposed that B2Gold, through its wholly owned subsidiary B2Gold Oklo Resources Pty Ltd, will acquire all the issued ordinary shares in Oklo for a combination of cash ($0.0525)…

Continue reading Re Oklo Resources Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Re Oklo Resources Ltd [2022] WASC 289
Case
[2022] WASC 289
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, Oklo Resources Limited (Oklo) sought orders under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) to convene a meeting of its members to consider and vote on the proposed scheme of arrangement (Scheme) for the acquisition of all issued ordinary shares in Oklo by B2Gold Corp (B2Gold). The proposed Scheme would see B2Gold acquire all of the issued ordinary shares in Oklo, with Oklo becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of B2Gold. The Scheme meeting was scheduled for 1 September 2022. The application came before Hill J, who made orders pursuant to s 411(1) of the Act to convene the meeting of Oklo's members to consider and vote on the proposed Scheme. Hill J found that the proposed Scheme was one that sensible businesspeople might consider to be of benefit to Oklo's members and was fit for consideration by the members. Hill J was satisfied that the formal matters that Oklo had to prove were satisfied. These included that the Scheme was bona fide and properly proposed and that ASIC had had at least 14 days' notice of the proposed hearing date and a reasonable opportunity to examine the terms of the scheme and the scheme booklet and make submissions. Hill J was also satisfied that the disclosure in the Scheme booklet was proper and that the Scheme booklet contained the prescribed information.

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.