Re Recall Holdings Ltd (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 7 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Recall Holdings Limited, in the matter of Recall Holdings Limited (No 2)

[2016] FCA 419

File number: NSD 1230 of 2015
Judge: YATES J
Date of judgment: 21 April 2016
Catchwords: CORPORATIONS – scheme of arrangement – second court hearing – application for approval  
Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 411, 412

Securities Act of 1933 (US) s 3

Cases cited: Recall Holdings Limited, in the matter of Recall Holdings Limited [2015] FCA 1142
Date of hearing: 21 April 2016
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 15
Counsel for the Plaintiff: Mr IM Jackman SC
Solicitor for the Plaintiff: Allens
Counsel for Iron Mountain Incorporated: Mr P Brereton SC
Solicitor for Iron Mountain Incorporated: Minter Ellison

ORDERS

NSD 1230 of 2015

IN THE MATTER OF RECALL HOLDINGS LIMITED (ABN 27 116 537 832)

RECALL HOLDINGS LIMITED (ABN 27 116 537 832)

Plaintiff

JUDGE:

YATES J

DATE OF ORDER:

21 APRIL 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Pursuant to s 411(4)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act), the scheme of arrangement between the plaintiff and its members (the scheme), in the form contained in Appendix 4 of the scheme booklet issued by the plaintiff and dated 23 October 2015, being Exhibit 1 in the proceeding, be approved.

2.The plaintiff lodge with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission a copy of the approved scheme at the time of lodging a copy of these orders.

3.Pursuant to s 411(12) of the Act, the plaintiff be exempted from compliance with s 411(11) of the Act in relation to the scheme.

4.The plaintiff be granted liberty to apply.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

5.Iron Mountain Incorporated will rely on the Court’s approval of the scheme for the purposes of qualifying for exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 (US), provided for by s 3(a)(10) of that Act, in connection with the implementation of, and the provision of consideration, under the scheme.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

YATES J:

  1. The plaintiff, Recall Holdings Limited, seeks orders pursuant to s 411(4)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) approving a scheme of arrangement, the terms of which are contained in Appendix 4 of the scheme booklet which is Exhibit 1 in the proceeding (the scheme).

  2. On 22 October 2015, the Court made orders pursuant to s 411(1) of the Act providing for the convening of a meeting of members to consider the scheme and, if thought fit, agree to it, with or without modification (the scheme meeting):  Recall Holdings Limited, in the matter of Recall Holdings Limited [2015] FCA 1142 (the earlier reasons).

  3. Subsequent orders were made as follows:

    ·On 25 November 2015, the Court ordered, amongst other things, that the date for holding…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re Recall Holdings Ltd (No 2) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2016] FCA 419
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Recall Holdings Ltd (No 2), the court was presented with an application for the approval of a scheme of arrangement between the plaintiff company and its members. The case came before the Federal Court of Australia for a second hearing, following an initial consideration of the scheme's merits. The primary issue before the court was whether the scheme met the statutory criteria for approval under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Specifically, the court needed to determine if the scheme was fair and equitable to all parties involved and if it was in the best interests of the company and its members.

The court undertook a detailed analysis of the evidence and submissions provided by the parties. It examined the fairness and reasonableness of the scheme, considering the interests of both the company and its members. The court also took into account the potential impact of the scheme on creditors, minority shareholders, and other stakeholders. After careful consideration, the court concluded that the scheme was fair and equitable and in the best interests of the company and its members. The court also noted that the approval of the scheme would allow Iron Mountain Incorporated to qualify for an exemption from the registration requirements under the Securities Act of 1933 (US).

Accordingly, the court approved the scheme of arrangement in the form specified and ordered that the plaintiff company lodge a copy of the approved scheme with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Additionally, the court granted the plaintiff exemption from certain compliance requirements under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and allowed the plaintiff to apply for further relief if necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to s 411(4)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act), the scheme of arrangement between the plaintiff and its members (the scheme), in the form contained in Appendix 4 of the scheme booklet issued by the plaintiff and dated 23 October 2015, being Exhibit 1 in the proceeding, be approved.

2. The plaintiff lodge with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission a copy of the approved scheme at the time of lodging a copy of these orders.

3. Pursuant to s 411(12) of the Act, the plaintiff be exempted from compliance with s 411(11) of the Act in relation to the scheme.

4. The plaintiff be granted liberty to apply.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

5. Iron Mountain Incorporated will rely on the Court’s approval of the scheme for the purposes of qualifying for exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 (US), provided for by s 3(a)(10) of that Act, in connection with the implementation of, and the provision of consideration, under the scheme.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.