CORPORATIONS – application for compulsory acquisition of residual ordinary shares of Carawine Resources Limited – where the applicant is the “90% holder” of the relevant class of securities – where the applicant’s compliance with Division 1 of Part 6A.2 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) is irregular in part – whether appropriate to remediate such irregularities pursuant to s 1322 of the Act – where the applicant lodged a compulsory acquisition notice with the Australian Securities & Investments Commission on 21 March 2024 – where the notice relies upon the opinion expressed in an expert’s report dated 26 February 2024 – whether expert’s report inconsistent with the Act or otherwise deficient – whether applicant has established that the terms set out in the compulsory acquisition notice give a “fair value” for the relevant securities – application granted – costs reserved
Recent cases about acquisitions
-
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Macrolend Pty Ltd (No 3) [2025] FCA 1158
CORPORATIONS – debenture – whether certain loan and promissory note arrangements were “financial products” by reason of being debentures within the meaning of s 9 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) CORPORATIONS – alleged contraventions of ss 911A(1) and 911A(5B) of the Corporations Act – whether first defendant company and third defendant company carried on…
-
Pacific Current Group Limited v Fitzpatrick (No 2) [2025] FCA 1152
CORPORATIONS — merger of assets between Australian company and US company — Australian and US funds management boutiques — creation of unit trust — whether proper due diligence carried out by directors of Australian company — nature of interest in the WHV dividend and appreciation rights agreement — whether proper due diligence carried out concerning…
-
Torc Solutions Pty Ltd v Unex Corporation doing business as Hytorc [2025] FCA 1124
CONTRACTS – formation – where applicant and second respondent were parties to a Distributor Agreement – where closure of the second respondent announced – where applicant and first respondent executed a Branded Product Distribution Agreement – where applicant alleged that applicant and first respondent made an alternative agreement or that such agreement could be inferred…
