In this week's TGIF, we consider the recent case of
- On the initiative of
Justice Jackman , theFederal Court of Australia (the Court) is simplifying the scheme of arrangement process by clearing away more than a decade of encrusted practice and case law. - A new practice note is in the making, which is expected to draw on observations made by Jackman J in
Vita Group Ltd , in the matter ofVita Group Ltd [2023]FCA 400 (Vita Group ) relating to improving the efficiency of scheme of arrangement applications the Court. - The changes also promise to help make the process more accessible and streamlined not only for M&A but also for restructuring a company's debts, which has been an Australian reform objective for the last couple of years taking inspiration from reforms in
Singapore and theUK .
Schemes of arrangement are a familiar part of Australian M&A transactions and, less frequently, debt restructuring strategies. Over the years, a large body of law and practice has grown around the process, reducing its efficiency.
Various reforms to the scheme process have been proposed, particularly over the last couple of years, focused around papers released by
This week's TGIF case concerns a scheme application, by
Whilst the proposed scheme was largely conventional, Jackman J took the opportunity in a case management hearing in March to outline how the parties might approach the first and second court hearings. The transcript of that hearing has since been widely circulated.
Jackman J has formalised the views he shared during the case management hearing in the
-
addressing the considerable criticism in recent years from practitioners involved in corporate control transactions in
- upholding the Court's obligation under section 37M of the
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – the 'overarching purpose' to facilitate the just resolution of disputes according to law and as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible. His Honour emphasised that this principle was equally applicable to scheme of arrangement applications.
The effect of the case management hearing was that, in the words of Jackman J, "the legal representatives for Vita and the Bidder ... made a fresh start to the approach taken to the preparation of evidence for members' schemes of arrangement".
This declaration of a fresh start was prompted by observations by Jackman J that:
- the practice of providing a lengthy exhibit to a solicitor's affidavit containing all the correspondence between a plaintiff's solicitors and ASIC concerning the draft explanatory statement is wasteful and any necessary disclosures should be made by way of written or oral submissions;
- given that any independent expert report is not an opinion under the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), there is no need for a separate affidavit from the independent expert verifying the report. Jackman J noted the position may be different in some creditors' schemes where the expert's report is also used to prove impending insolvency and the likelihood of solvency post-implementation;
- the short formal affidavit to accompany an originating process need not go beyond annexing a recent ASIC search, if so directed by the Court;
- rule 3.2 of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth) does not require an affidavit from both a proposed chairperson and alternative chairperson and that rule may be satisfied by either the main affidavit or in a separate affidavit relied upon at the first court hearing;
- a more appropriate means of publishing the notice of hearing is by way of ASX announcement or, for unlisted companies, on a company's website, rather than publishing such a notice in an Australian newspaper;
- it is generally sufficient for the main affidavit to indicate in a single sentence the percentage value of any break fee payable by reference to the value of the company's shares;
- nothing in Part 5.1 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) requires a scheme company to seek the Court's approval for its communications with shareholders and others between the first court hearing and the scheme meeting unless a supplementary explanatory statement is required. This overturns a line of authorities that started with
Re Centro Retail Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1321 in which Barrett J had held that the Court should approve any proposal to shareholders for later supplementation of an approved explanatory statement; and - the orders made during the first court hearing did not require the plaintiff to give evidence of the plan for dispatch of the explanatory statement or other materials in circumstances where these documents were approved at the first court hearing.
Despite these observations, Jackman J noted that, in other cases, there may well be the need for further evidence in order for a plaintiff to discharge its responsibility to bring to the Court's attention all matters relevant to its discretion in granting the orders sought.
The decision signals what is likely to be the beginning of changes to schemes of arrangement applications making them simpler, faster and more cost efficient.
It is possible that the changes will alleviate the need for more significant reforms, which may have taken inspiration reforms in
We anticipate any changes will gain further traction with the introduction of a new practice note concerning scheme of arrangement applications, which has been foreshadowed by the Court and which will almost certainly draw on observations made by Jackman J in
Footnotes
1The Australian Government the
2 The Australian Government the
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Lawyers Weekly
Law firm of the year
2021 | Employer of Choice for Gender Equality
(WGEA) |
Mr
Level 17, 8 Chifley
NSW
2000
Tel: 29210 6500
Fax: 29210 6611
E-mail: jeremy.bojman@corrs.com.au
URL: www.corrs.com.au/insights
© Mondaq Ltd, 2023 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source