Allowed
Conversion of Notes Follows Terms of Issue: NSW Court of Appeal
Case No.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
📄 Read the full judgment⚖️ View on the official court website ↗
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The primary judge's orders from October 23, 2014, were set aside.
- The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs for the appeal and cross-appeal.
- The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs for the proceedings in the lower court.
- The court found that funds were raised to complete the restructure and were used for that purpose.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The argument that Tranche B notes should convert on a one-to-one share basis was rejected.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was over the conversion rate of the Tranche B notes and whether the borrowing constituted organic debt.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW) and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 were applied.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case.
Official source: Court of Appeal (NSW) — this page does not reproduce the decision; it links to the court's own publication. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Court of Appeal (NSW) and is reproduced from NSW Caselaw (© State of New South Wales) under its published republication policy. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.