Lawyers for litigation

QGold Pty Ltd v Woods [2025] FCA 1201

QGold Pty Ltd v Woods [2025] FCA 1201

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

  • Neve v LVMH Perfume & Cosmetics Group Pty Limited (Suppression Order) [2026] FCA 108

    PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for suppression and non-publication orders – where matter referred to mediation yet to occur – where non-parties sought access documents on the Court file – whether suppression and non-publication orders necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice

  • Australian Securities and Investments Commission v FIIG Securities Limited [2026] FCA 92

    CORPORATIONS – Financial services licence – ASIC sought declaration under s 1317E(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) in respect of admitted contraventions of s 912A of the Corporations Act – ASIC sought orders imposing a pecuniary penalty in an agreed sum – where defendant was subject to a cyber attack as a…

  • First Class Securities Limited v Global Future Holdings Pty Ltd (Freezing Orders) [2026] FCA 48

    PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for freezing orders pursuant to r 7.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – where ex parte freezing orders and asset disclosure orders have been made against the respondents – whether applicant has established good arguable case, risk of undermining the Court’s processes – whether balance of convenience favours…

Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2025/2025fca1201For more information, see the original judgement.

Posted

in

,
Send this to a friend