This week’s TGIF considers Fordyce v Ryan & Anor; Fordyce v Quinn & Anor [2016] QSC 307, where the Court considered whether a beneficiary’s interest in a discretionary trust amounted to ‘property’ for the purposes of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers the most recent decision in a line of cases which hold that the provisions of the Code of Banking Practice may be incorporated into loan agreements, as well as guarantees given by individuals.

BACKGROUND

Legislation and proposed legislation

Government consults on proposals for technology neutrality in the distribution of company meeting communications

The Government has proposed a technology neutral mode of distributing company meeting notices and materials which aims to facilitate innovation and reduce economic and time costs for companies, while maintaining an appropriate level of shareholder engagement.

Key Points:

While shareholders may only need to establish indirect market causation, there are still significant obstacles for establishing shareholder claims.

Do plaintiffs in a shareholder class action have to show they relied upon misleading or deceptive conduct, or is it enough that the market in general relied upon them, which then affected the share price?

The issue of how causation can be established has been one significant debate in Australian securities class actions involving alleged breaches of the Corporations Act by corporations. It has been unresolved whether shareholders must prove individual reliance on the contravening conduct of companies, or if the conduct affects the market price of shares purchased and/or sold by shareholders is sufficient.

Introduction

In most cases, the precondition for the appointment of a liquidator and the winding up of a company by a court is that a company is insolvent. However, in some cases courts will make these orders in the context of a shareholders dispute where there is a management deadlock or a breakdown in trust and confidence between shareholders. Additionally, a court may make these orders where there has been serious fraud or mismanagement in the conduct of a company’s affairs.

Relevant law

Introduction

In most cases, the precondition for the appointment of a liquidator and the winding up of a company by a court is that a company is insolvent. However, in some cases courts will make these orders in the context of a shareholders dispute where there is a management deadlock or a breakdown in trust and confidence between shareholders. Additionally, a court may make these orders where there has been serious fraud or mismanagement in the conduct of a company’s affairs.

Relevant law

Where a court has ordered the winding-up of a company, a shareholder may be able to have the winding up terminated under section 482 of the Corporations Act 2001.

Relevant factors

The power of the court to terminate a winding-up is discretionary. Relevant factors to be considered, which are not exhaustive, include the following:

Background

In In the matter of Nexus Energy Ltd (subject to a deed of company arrangement) [2014] NSWSC 1910, the deed administrators of Nexus Energy Limited (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) (Nexus) sought leave of the Court to transfer all ordinary shares in Nexus to SGH Energy (No 2) Pty Ltd (SGH2). SGH2 was the proponent of the Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) and was also associated with the secured lender.

Key points

Justice Black has confirmed in his written reasons for judgment in ReNexus Energy Ltd (subject to deed of company arrangement) [2014] NSWSC 1910 (Nexus) the utility of section 444GA to achieve debt for equity restructures of listed companies.