We can help you buy or sell a residential or commercial property anywhere in Australia. Leasing contract services included.
ForumLaw provides legal services and contract work for any type of business transaction from business registration to succession matters.
We'll help make your project a success, from setting up & revising contracts and agreements to tracking sales & leases in multiple-strata unit projects online!
Choose a package that suits your needs. We then maintain constant legal watch of your business.
Take control of your assets today. Contact ForumLaw to arrange a new Will or review any existing arragements in place.
Stay in touch with how the law affects you! Subscribe to our
At Forum Law we have been receiving enquiries from disgruntled shareholders and creditors about corporate conduct with unfair consequences for the shareholders and creditors. So what have the courts recently deemed to be acceptable and not acceptable conduct of companies?
The question of "shareholder activism" was examined by the NSW Supreme Court in the recent case of Molopo Endergy Limited v Keybridge Capital Limited  NSWSC 1840 ("Molopo").
In this case concerning ASX-listed companies, Keybridge, a substantial shareholder in Molopo, sought to hold a general meeting of members to propose a resolution to reduce the company's capital by about $54 million. Section 256B of the Corporations Act provides that a company may reduce its share capital in a way that it is not otherwise authorised by law if:
The directors of Molopo refused the request to hold the meeting. Keybridge then sought to hold a meeting to change the company's constitution to allow the company's members in a general meeting to "manage" the company's share capital, as opposed to this being within the control of the board of directors. Keybridge also sought, again, to pass a resolution that the share capital be reduced.
The court ruled that in this case, Section 256B of the Corporations Act should be read as "the company, by its directors, may reduce its share capital." The reasoning was that the shareholders (members) of Molopo could not have sufficient information at their disposal to make decisions which would sufficiently protect its members and its creditors to satisfy the pre-requisites to consider the reduction in capital.
This decision then leads to a discussion of to what extent should information about a company (which is not publicly available) be available to members so that the members can engage in greater activism for the benefit of their company, particularly where the information leads to greater scrutiny of the performance of directors and other company officers and questions of corporate governance.
If there is a successful appeal of this decision in Molopo it will be interesting to see if shareholder activism (particularly increased access to company information by shareholders) is further agitated.