A condition precedent expressed in terms of a party not raising 'all of the capital required... from a new issue of... shares... carried out' for a specified purpose requires that a capital raising actually be undertaken; mere failure to satisfy a redemption request without any capital raising does not fulfil the condition. The definition of 'redeemable preference share' under ss 9 and 254A of the Corporations Act involves two independent qualifications — preference and redeemability — and the question of whether shares are preference shares was left unresolved as between the majority (who held the A Class Shares were preference shares) and Macaulay JA (who held they were not). A contractual definition of 'Insolvency Event' referring to inability to pay debts 'as and when they fall due' will be construed as involving a cash flow test akin to s 95A of the Corporations Act.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.