EOFY Sale · Save up to $750 off your legals · Ends 30 June

Claim offer
Selected cases

Federal Court of Australia · [2026] FCA 307

Our Jim & Felicja Superfund v Lindenfels

A Federal Court shareholder oppression case about investor rights, agency and offtake agreements, nominee directors and rights issues.

Federal Court of Australia20 Mar 2026

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • Shareholder oppression claims are not a shortcut around a hard bargain.
  • A Federal Court shareholder oppression case about investor rights, agency and offtake agreements, nominee directors and rights issues.

Use this to check

  • Minority shareholder disappointment is not enough by itself to prove oppression.
  • Agency, offtake and investor rights should be drafted so the commercial roles do not blur.
  • Nominee directors need clear conflict, information and board-process rules.

Decision snapshot

  1. 1

    What happened

    • The dispute arose from Batchfire Resources Pty Ltd's acquisition of the Callide thermal coal mine in Central Queensland in 2016.
    • Batchfire had an ambitious turnaround plan, but the mine underperformed after acquisition.
    • Avra Commodities invested through Lindenfels and Batchfire entered both an agency agreement, appointing Avra as exclusive marketing agent for export coal, and an offtake agreement, under which Avra could buy export coal.
    • Minority shareholders alleged Avra and its nominee director, Mr Burgess, used those arrangements to turn Batchfire into a captive coal producer for Avra's trading business.
  2. 2

    What the court had to decide

    • The Federal Court had to decide whether Avra owed fiduciary obligations in performing its agency agreement, whether its offtake rights were constrained by any marketing obligation, whether a nominee director breached statutory or equitable duties, and whether the coal trading conduct and rights issues were oppressive under sections 232 and 233 of the...
  3. 3

    What the court decided

    • The Court dismissed the minority shareholders' case with costs.
    • It found, among other things, that Avra did not owe the pleaded fiduciary obligations, its contractual right to acquire export coal was not subject to the marketing-performance constraint advanced by the plaintiffs, the rights issues would have been required independently of the impugned conduct, and the director duty and oppression claims were not...

Practical impact

Practical read

  • Shareholder oppression claims are not a shortcut around a hard bargain.
  • If a shareholder agreement, agency agreement or offtake agreement gives someone a commercial right, the disappointed minority still needs to prove unfairness in the conduct of the company's affairs, not just that the deal later...

Useful next steps

  • Minority shareholder disappointment is not enough by itself to prove oppression.
  • Agency, offtake and investor rights should be drafted so the commercial roles do not blur.
  • Nominee directors need clear conflict, information and board-process rules.
  • Rights issues should be supported by records showing the company's actual funding need.
  • Separate investor rights, agency duties, distributor roles and customer offtake rights in the documents.

Practical read

This is a big mining-company dispute, but the business lesson is very ordinary. A company raised money, entered commercial agreements with a major investor, gave that investor rights around the sale of product, and later minority shareholders said the structure had been used unfairly.

The Court treated the documents seriously. It looked at what the agency agreement and offtake agreement actually allowed Avra to do, whether the alleged marketing obligations limited Avra's right to buy export coal, whether a fiduciary duty existed on the pleaded case, and whether rights issues would have happened anyway because the company needed money.

For small and growing companies, this is a useful warning about mixed roles. Investors, nominee directors, agents, distributors and offtake customers can all sit close to the business at once. If the documents do not say clearly what each role can and cannot do, the commercial relationship may later be recast as oppression, conflict or misuse of position. The answer is not to make every deal impossible.

It is to make related-party rights, information flows, pricing mechanics, board conflicts and capital-raising decisions explicit before the money goes in.

Checks to run

Key points

  • Separate investor rights, agency duties, distributor roles and customer offtake rights in the documents.
  • Record why a rights issue is needed and how the price, timing and participation terms were set.
  • Give nominee directors written conflict and information-sharing protocols before they join the board.
  • Avoid relying on broad fairness language where pricing or marketing mechanics should be precise.
  • Keep board papers that explain the commercial reason for related-party transactions.

Key takeaways

  • Minority shareholder disappointment is not enough by itself to prove oppression.
  • Agency, offtake and investor rights should be drafted so the commercial roles do not blur.
  • Nominee directors need clear conflict, information and board-process rules.
  • Rights issues should be supported by records showing the company's actual funding need.

Related topics

How Sprintlaw can help