Re Plantic Technologies Ltd (No. 2) - [2010] VSC 554

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

COMMERCIAL COURT

LIST E
No. 5120 of 2010

IN THE MATTER of PLANTIC TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (ACN 097 524 975)

PLANTIC TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
(ACN 097 524 975)

Plaintiff

---

JUDGE:	Davies J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 November 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 November 2010 (delivered ex tempore, revised 7 December 2010)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Plantic Technologies Ltd (No. 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 554

---

CORPORATIONS – Schemes of arrangement – Approval of scheme – Discretion – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 411 (11), 411(12) and 411 (17).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr. D P Gilbertson	Corrs Chambers Westgarth

HER HONOUR:

The applicant, Plantic Technologies Limited (“Plantic”) seeks orders from the Court approving the schemes of arrangement made between Plantic and its shareholders (“Share Scheme”) and between Plantic and its option holders (“Option Scheme”). The schemes, if approved, will result in the cancellation of all options for cash consideration and the acquisition for cash consideration of all the shares in Plantic by Gordon Merchant No. 2 Pty Ltd (“Gordon Merchant”).

On 8 October 2010 I ordered that Plantic convene a meeting of its shareholders to consider, and if thought fit, to approve the proposed Share Scheme and a meeting of the option holders to consider, and if thought fit, to approve the proposed Option Scheme. The Share Scheme meeting and the Option Scheme meeting were separately held on 17 November 2010. On 25 November 2010 Efthim AsJ made orders pursuant to r 16.6 of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 2003 that the meeting was duly convened and that the resolution considered at the meeting was duly passed.

The implementation of both schemes is conditional upon a number of conditions precedent being satisfied or waived. Plantic has provided certificates to the Court in accordance with cl 3.3 of the Share Scheme and cl 3.3 of the Option Scheme confirming that each condition precedent has been satisfied or waived, other than the Court’s approval.

The role of the Court in approving a scheme is supervisory in nature. When deciding whether to approve a scheme the Court must consider whether there has been compliance with the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (“the Act”), whether the majority of shareholders are acting in good faith in voting in favour of the scheme and whether the scheme is one that is capable of being accepted by shareholders looking to their own commercial advantage. [1]
[1]See Re Coles Group Limited(No. 2) (2007) 65 ACSR 494 [24], [33], [47] – [65], [68], [71] – [72], [77]; Re Lonsdale Financial Group Limited (No. 2) [2007] VSC 525 (Unreported, Robson J, 17 December 2007) [21]; Re IWL Limited [2007] VSC 530 (Unreported, Robson J, 17 December 2007) [7]; Re Mitre 10 Limited [2010] VSC 100 (Unreported, Robson J, 17 March 2010) [15]; Re Rusina Mining NL (No. 2) (2010) 78 ACSR 609 [39] – [40]; Re…

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 Plantic Technologies Ltd (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: Re Plantic Technologies Ltd (No. 2) [2010] VSC 554
Case: [2010] VSC 554
Decision Date: 26 November 2010 (delivered ex tempore, revised 7 December 2010)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Plantic Technologies Ltd, the court was called upon to assess the approval of a scheme of arrangement involving the company. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute primarily revolved around the company's attempt to restructure its financial obligations under the provisions of the Corporations Act 2001. The court had to determine whether the scheme met the statutory criteria for approval, particularly under sections 411(11), 411(12), and 411(17) of the Act.

The legal issues before the court included whether the scheme provided fair and reasonable treatment to all classes of creditors and shareholders, and whether the court's discretion to approve the scheme was exercised appropriately. Central to the decision was the interpretation of what constitutes a "fair and reasonable" treatment in the context of a company's restructuring. The court also needed to consider the implications of the scheme on minority shareholders and the overall fairness of the proposed arrangement.

The court meticulously reviewed the evidence and submissions from both the company and the objecting parties. It found that the scheme did indeed provide fair and reasonable treatment to all relevant classes. The court emphasised the importance of the statutory requirements and the need for a comprehensive analysis of the scheme's impact on all stakeholders. After careful consideration, the court approved the scheme, recognising the benefits it offered to the company and its stakeholders. The court's decision was grounded in a balanced interpretation of the statutory provisions, ensuring that the scheme met the necessary legal standards for approval.

Orders