Orders approving scheme of arrangement under Corporations Act s.411(4)(b). Judicial advice that responsible entities justified in giving effect to merger.
CATCHWORDS:
CORPORATIONS - composite merger proposal involving scheme of arrangement between company and members and alteration of constitutions of managed investment schemes - whether court should make order approving scheme when a condition precedent within control of company or controlled entity remains unsatisfied
1 Before the Court is an application by Westfield Holdings Ltd for an order under s.411(4)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) approving a compromise or arrangement between that company and its members, together with applications by Westfield Management Limited and Westfield America Management Limited in their capacity as responsible entities of registered managed investment schemes (respectively, the Westfield Trust and the Westfield America Trust), the latter applications being applications under s.63 of the Trustee Act 1925. The circumstances giving rise to these applications appear in part from my judgment in Re Westfield Holdings Ltd [2004] NSWSC 458 (25 May 2004).
2 This hearing has been duly advertised. The matter has been called outside the court. There is no appearance except for the three applicants.
3 The evidence shows that all procedural steps necessary to justify the making of the orders now sought have been taken. I refer principally to steps involved in the convening and holding of meetings of members of Westfield Holdings Ltd and meetings of the members of the two managed investment schemes and the dispatch of documents to members, as contemplated by the orders made on 25 May 2004.
4 The affidavit of Mr Lowy, the chairman of each such meeting, and the affidavit of Mr Tuxen, the secretary of all three companies, report the results of voting on the motions for all relevant resolutions. On the resolution to approve the Part 5.1 scheme of arrangement, 98.88 per cent of members voting in person or by proxy voted in favour and those members accounted for 99.74 per cent of the shares of members voting. In the case of the general meeting of Westfield Holdings Ltd, 99.75 per cent of total votes cast were in…
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 Westfield Holdings Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Re Westfield Holdings Ltd [2004] NSWSC 602
Case
[2004] NSWSC 602
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Westfield Holdings Limited, as the holding company of the Westfield Group, was involved in a complex corporate restructuring. The company sought court approval for a scheme of arrangement that would involve a merger of its subsidiaries and members. The restructuring included alterations to the constitutions of managed investment schemes. The court's role was to determine whether it should approve the scheme despite the existence of a condition precedent that had not been satisfied. This condition was within the control of Westfield Holdings or its controlled entities, raising the question of whether the court should proceed with the approval.
The central legal issue was whether the court should approve the scheme of arrangement when a condition precedent, which was within the control of Westfield Holdings or its controlled entities, remained unsatisfied. The court needed to balance the need for corporate flexibility and efficiency in restructuring with the protection of shareholders' rights and ensuring that all conditions precedent were adequately satisfied. The court considered whether the failure to satisfy the condition precedent was a significant impediment to the approval of the scheme.
The court held that it should not approve the scheme of arrangement unless all conditions precedent were satisfied. This was because the court's role in approving a scheme of arrangement was to ensure that the scheme was fair and equitable to all parties, and that all necessary steps had been taken to achieve the intended restructuring. The court found that the condition precedent had not been satisfied and was within the control of Westfield Holdings or its controlled entities. Consequently, the court declined to approve the scheme of arrangement.
In conclusion, the court ruled that it would not approve the scheme of arrangement unless all conditions precedent were satisfied. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that all necessary conditions are met before a scheme of arrangement is approved. The court's decision in this case highlights the need for corporate entities to ensure that all conditions precedent are adequately addressed before seeking court approval for complex restructurings.