A deed of company arrangement that discriminates between classes of unsecured creditors by extinguishing the debts of some while merely deferring the debts of related creditors may be oppressive and unfairly discriminatory under s 445D(1)(f) and may prejudice creditors who voted against the resolution to an unreasonable extent under s 600A(1)(c)(ii). However, unexplained delay and the absence of financial benefit from setting aside the deed may justify refusal of discretionary relief even where serious procedural and substantive deficiencies are established. The question under s 600A(1)(c)(ii) is whether creditors who voted against the resolution would have been better off if it had not been passed, not whether they would have been better off under some conjectural fairer deed that was never proposed (per Fitzgerald JA, but cf Davies AJA who took a broader view).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 21 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 21 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.