Re Zenith Energy Ltd

Case [2020] WASC 266


JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION:   RE ZENITH ENERGY LTD; EX PARTE ZENITH ENERGY LTD  [2020] WASC 266

CORAM:   HILL J

HEARD:   25 JUNE 2020

DELIVERED          :   16 JULY 2020

FILE NO/S:   COR 51 of 2020

EX PARTE

ZENITH ENERGY LTD

Plaintiff

ELEMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE BIDCO PTY LTD

Interested Party


Catchwords:

Corporations law - Scheme of arrangement - Application for orders convening scheme meetings under s 411(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - Whether requirements to order scheme meetings are satisfied - Virtual scheme meetings - Whether executive directors should make a voting recommendation to members - Orders made convening meeting

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 411, s 1319
Corporations (Coronavirus Economic Response) Determination (No 1) 2020 (Cth), cl 5
Supreme Court (Corporations) (WA) Rules 2004 (WA)

Result:

Application granted

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : SK Dharmananda SC &  J Sippe
Interested Party : S C Davies SC

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Allens
Interested Party : Minter Ellison

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

First Pacific Advisors LLC v Boart Longyear Ltd [2017] NSWCA 116; (2017) 320 FLR 78

Pacific Energy Limited [2019] WASC 443

Re Amcom Telecommunications Ltd [2015] FCA 341

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

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

Re David Jones Ltd [No 2] [2014] FCA 753

Re Doray Minerals Ltd [2019] WASC 57

Re Dreamscape Networks Ltd [2019] WASC 412

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

Re Dulux Group [2019] FCA 961; (2019) 136 ACSR 546

Re Gazal Corporation Ltd [2019] FCA 701

Re Healthscope Ltd [2019] FCA 542; (2019) 139 ACSR 608

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 MOD Resources Ltd [2019] WASC 326

Re Navitas Limited [2019] WASC 180

Re Navitas Ltd [No 2] [2019] WASC 218

Re NRMA Ltd [2000] NSWSC 82; (2000) 156 FLR 349

Re Nzuri Copper Ltd [2019] WASC 189

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

Re QMS Media Limited [2019] FCA 2172

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

Re SMS Management and Technology Limited [2017] VSC 257

Re SRG Limited [2018] FCA 1092

Re Villa World Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1207

Re Wellcom Group Ltd [2019] FCA 1655

Re Wesfarmers Ltd [2018] WASC 308

HILL J:

  1. The plaintiff, Zenith Energy Limited (Zenith Energy), is an Australian public company listed on the official list of the ASX Ltd (ASX).

  2. On 6 March 2020, Zenith Energy announced that it had entered into a scheme implementation deed (Original SID) with Elemental Infrastructure BidCo Pty Ltd (Elemental).  Under the Original SID, it was proposed that Elemental would acquire 100% of the fully paid ordinary shares in Zenith Energy by way of…

Continue reading Re Zenith Energy Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Re Zenith Energy Ltd [2020] WASC 266
Case
[2020] WASC 266
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court involved an application by Zenith Energy Ltd to convene meetings of its members and creditors to consider a proposed scheme of arrangement. The application was made under section 411(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The primary issue before the Court was whether the conditions necessary to order such meetings were met, specifically whether the requisite majority of members and creditors in number and value had resolved to convene the meetings. Additionally, the Court considered whether executive directors should be required to make a voting recommendation to members regarding the proposed scheme.

The Court examined the application and the relevant provisions of the Corporations Act, including section 411(1), and considered the submissions made by Zenith Energy Ltd and the objectors to the scheme. The Court found that the requirements for convening the meetings were satisfied, as the requisite majorities had indeed resolved to convene the meetings. The Court also considered the issue of whether executive directors should be required to make a voting recommendation to members. While acknowledging the potential benefits of such a recommendation, the Court concluded that it was not appropriate to impose such a requirement as a matter of law, given the particular circumstances of the case and the absence of any relevant statutory provision mandating such a recommendation.

The Court ordered the convening of meetings of the members and creditors of Zenith Energy Ltd to consider the proposed scheme of arrangement. It was noted that the scheme meetings would be conducted virtually due to the prevailing circumstances. The Court did not impose a requirement on the executive directors to make a voting recommendation to members. The orders made by the Court provided for the scheme meetings to be held, with the timing and manner of the meetings to be determined in accordance with the Court's directions.

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.