Re Tower Australia Group Ltd

Case [2011] FCA 224


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Tower Australia Group Limited, in the matter of Tower Australia Group Limited [2011] FCA 224

Citation: Tower Australia Group Limited, in the matter of Tower Australia Group Limited [2011] FCA 224
Parties: TOWER AUSTRALIA GROUP LIMITED (ABN 79 003 401 698)
File number: NSD 234 of 2011
Judge: STONE J
Date of judgment: 16 March 2011
Catchwords: CORPORATIONS – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – s 411(1) – scheme of arrangement – application for orders approving company convening meeting of shareholders to consider proposed scheme of arrangement and directions as to conduct of meeting
Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 411, 412

Corporations Regulations 2001 reg 5.6.13

Cases cited: APN News & Media Limited (2007) 62 ACSR 400
Re Adelaide Bank Limited [2007] FCA 1582
Re Arthur Yates & Co Ltd (2001) 36 ACSR 758
Re Investa Properties Limited [2007] FCA 1104
RePermanent Trustee Co Ltd (2003) 43 ACSR 601
Re Provet Holdings Limited [2010] FCA 1388
Re Sylvastate Limited [2011] FCA 211
Date of hearing: 11 March 2011
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 29
Counsel for the Plaintiff: R McHugh SC
Solicitor for the Plaintiff: Blake Dawson

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 234 of 2011

IN THE MATTER OF TOWER AUSTRALIA GROUP LIMITED (ABN 79 003 401 698)

TOWER AUSTRALIA GROUP LIMITED (ABN 79 003 401 698)
Plaintiff

JUDGE:

STONE J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 MARCH 2011

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Pursuant to subsection 411(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act):

(a)the plaintiff convene a meeting (Scheme Meeting) of the holders of ordinary shares in the plaintiff (other than The Dai-ichi Life Insurance Company, Limited or any of its associates) (Shareholders) for the purpose of considering and, if thought fit, agreeing to a scheme of arrangement (with or without modification) between the plaintiff and its Shareholders (Scheme of Arrangement), the terms of which are set out in Annexure A of the document which is Exhibit 1 in these proceedings (Scheme Booklet);

(b)the Scheme Meeting be held on 18 April 2011 at the Barnet Long Room, Custom House, Level 1, 31 Alfred Street, Circular Quay, Sydney at 2.30 pm;

(c)Robert Thomas or, failing him, Ralph Pliner, act as Chairman of the Scheme Meeting;

(d)the Chairman have the power to adjourn the Scheme Meeting for such time as the Chairman considers appropriate; and

(e)the Scheme Booklet with the addition of “and may even be adverse” after “optimal” in paragraph 1.2(d) be, and hereby is, approved for distribution to Shareholders.

2.Other than Regulation 5.6.13 of the Corporations Regulations 2001, rule 2.15 of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth) shall not apply to the Scheme Meeting.

3.Notice of the hearing of an application pursuant to subsection 411(4) of the Act for an order approving the Scheme of Arrangement be published once in “The Australian” newspaper by an advertisement substantially…

Continue reading Re Tower Australia Group Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Re Tower Australia Group Ltd [2011] FCA 224
Case
[2011] FCA 224
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Tower Australia Group Limited sought orders under section 411(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to convene a meeting of its shareholders to consider a proposed scheme of arrangement. The proposed scheme included several provisions, such as deemed warranties, encumbrances, good faith actions, performance risk, and funding arrangements, which the company believed did not impede the approval of the scheme. The legal issues before the Court were whether the scheme was bona fide and properly proposed, and if the necessary requirements for the first court hearing had been met.

The Court found that the scheme was bona fide and properly proposed, and that ASIC had been given an opportunity to examine the proposal and adequate notice of the first court hearing date. The plaintiff had also tendered a letter from ASIC stating that it did not propose to appear at the first Court hearing or to oppose the Scheme at that time. The Court was satisfied that the requirements necessary to be proved at a first court hearing in relation to an application under section 411(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) had been met. The Court approved the scheme with one amendment as discussed above at [10].

The Court made orders pursuant to section 411(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for the plaintiff to convene a meeting of the holders of ordinary shares in the plaintiff for the purpose of considering and, if thought fit, agreeing to a scheme of arrangement. The Court also made orders for the notice of the hearing of an application for an order approving the scheme of arrangement to be published in "The Australian" newspaper and for the proceedings to be stood over to 10.15 am on 21 April 2011. The Court granted the plaintiff liberty to apply and ordered that these orders be entered forthwith.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to subsection 411(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act):

(a) the plaintiff convene a meeting (Scheme Meeting) of the holders of ordinary shares in the plaintiff (other than The Dai-ichi Life Insurance Company, Limited or any of its associates) (Shareholders) for the purpose of considering and, if thought fit, agreeing to a scheme of arrangement (with or without modification) between the plaintiff and its Shareholders (Scheme of Arrangement), the terms of which are set out in Annexure A of the document which is Exhibit 1 in these proceedings (Scheme Booklet);

(b) the Scheme Meeting be held on 18 April 2011 at the Barnet Long Room, Custom House, Level 1, 31 Alfred Street, Circular Quay, Sydney at 2.30 pm;

(c) Robert Thomas or, failing him, Ralph Pliner, act as Chairman of the Scheme Meeting;

(d) the Chairman have the power to adjourn the Scheme Meeting for such time as the Chairman considers appropriate; and

(e) the Scheme Booklet with the addition of “and may even be adverse” after “optimal” in paragraph 1.2(d) be, and hereby is, approved for distribution to Shareholders.

2. Other than Regulation 5.6.13 of the Corporations Regulations 2001, rule 2.15 of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth) shall not apply to the Scheme Meeting.

3. Notice of the hearing of an application pursuant to subsection 411(4) of the Act for an order approving the Scheme of Arrangement be published once in “The Australian” newspaper by an advertisement substantially in the form of Annexure A to these orders, such advertisement to be published on or before 15 April 2011, and the plaintiff be otherwise exempted from compliance with rule 3.4 of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth).

4. The proceedings be stood over to 10.15 am on 21 April 2011.

5. The plaintiff be granted liberty to apply.

6. These orders be entered forthwith.

Date that entry is stamped:

Deputy District Registrar

Annexure A

NOTICE OF HEARING TO APPROVE ARRANGEMENT

TO all the creditors and members of Tower Australia Group Limited (TOWER Australia) ABN 79 003 401 698

TAKE NOTICE THAT at 10.15 am on 21 April 2011 the Federal Court of Australia at Commonwealth Law Courts Building, Queens Square, Sydney, New South Wales will hear an application by TOWER Australia seeking the approval of an arrangement between TOWER Australia and its members as proposed by a resolution to be considered and, if thought fit, passed at a meeting of members of the company to be held at Barnet Long Room, Custom House, Level 1, 31 Alfred Street, Circular Quay, Sydney at 2.30 pm (Sydney time) on 18 April 2011.

If you wish to oppose the approval of the arrangement, you must file and serve on TOWER Australia a notice of appearance, in the prescribed form, together with any affidavit on which you wish to rely at the hearing. The notice of appearance and affidavit must be served on TOWER Australia at least 1 day before the date fixed for the hearing of the application.

The address for service of TOWER Australia is c/o Blake Dawson, Level 35, Grosvenor Place, 225 George Street, Sydney, NSW 2000 (Attention: Andrew Carter), Facsimile: (02) 9258 6999, Email: andrew.carter@blakedawson.com.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Philippa Ellis

Company Secretary

TOWER Australia Group Limited

Note:

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

In accordance with this duty the plaintiff brings to the attention of the Court aspects of the proposed Scheme that have been discussed above. These include the provisions in respect of,·the deemed warranty;·no encumbrances;·no liability when acting in good faith;·no performance risk for Scheme Shareholders;·‘no talk’ and ‘no shop’; and·funding arrangements.For reasons given above, I accept that none of these provisions provide an obstacle to the Court’s approval, in due course, of the proposed Scheme.Evidence necessary for a first court hearing I am satisfied from the evidence before me that the requirements necessary to be proved at a first court hearing in relation to an application under s 411(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) have been met. In particular I am satisfied that the plaintiff is a Part 5.1 body, that the proposed Scheme is an “arrangement” within the meaning of s 411, that Mr Thomas has consented to act as Chairman of the Scheme Meeting and Mr Pliner has consented to act in his absence. I am satisfied that the Scheme is bona fide and properly proposed and that ASIC has been given an opportunity to examine the proposal and adequate notice of the first Court hearing date. The plaintiff has tendered a letter dated 10 March 2011 from ASIC stating that it does not propose to appear at the first Court hearing or to oppose the Scheme at that time. Conclusion On the basis of the evidence tendered by the plaintiff and for the reasons given above, I was satisfied that the orders sought by the plaintiff should, with one amendment as discussed above at [10] be made.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I am satisfied that the Scheme is bona fide and properly proposed and that ASIC has been given an opportunity to examine the proposal and adequate notice of the first Court hearing date. The plaintiff has tendered a letter dated 10 March 2011 from ASIC stating that it does not propose to appear at the first Court hearing or to oppose the Scheme at that time. Conclusion On the basis of the evidence tendered by the plaintiff and for the reasons given above, I was satisfied that the orders sought by the plaintiff should, with one amendment as discussed above at [10] be made.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.