Blaze Asset Pty Ltd v Target Energy Limited [2009] FCA 698

Blaze Asset Pty Ltd v Target Energy Limited [2009] FCA 698

The Court determined that under s 1322(4)(d) of the Corporations Act it has power to extend the period for Blaze Asset Pty Ltd to lodge a supplementary bidder's statement and a further notice of variation, even though the periods had expired, because the failure arose from an error in judgment following advice from ASIC, there was prompt action to remedy, and no substantial injustice would be caused. The making of the extension orders would maintain commercial certainty reflecting current market understanding and would appropriately protect shareholder interests.

Parties
Plaintiff: Blaze Asset Pty Ltd; Defendant: Target Energy Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Corporations Application (extension of Time Under Corporations Act) / Judgment and Final Orders on Application
Outcome
Orders granted as sought by the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Compliance, Takeover Bid Procedures, Court Powers Under S 1322 Corporations Act, Variation of Offers in Takeovers
Corporations Law Extension of Time for Compliance Takeover Bid Procedures Court Powers Under S 1322 Corporations Act Variation of Offers in Takeovers

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 39 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blaze Asset Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Target Energy Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Corporations Application (extension of Time Under Corporations Act) / Judgment and Final Orders on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court has power under s 1322(4)(d) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to extend time to lodge a supplementary bidder's statement and to further vary a takeover bid after the relevant statutory period had expired.
  2. 2 Whether any substantial injustice would result from the grant of the extension orders sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court determined that under s 1322(4)(d) of the Corporations Act it has power to extend the period for Blaze Asset Pty Ltd to lodge a supplementary bidder's statement and a further notice of variation, even though the periods had expired, because the failure arose from an error in judgment following advice from ASIC, there was prompt action to remedy, and no substantial injustice would be caused. The making of the extension orders would maintain commercial certainty reflecting current market understanding and would appropriately protect shareholder interests.

Court Disposition

Orders granted as sought by the plaintiff.

Orders

  • Time for service of originating process abridged.
  • Time for lodgement of plaintiff's notice of variation (supplementary bidder's statement dated 5 June 2009) extended to 8 June 2009.