This article is from the Australian Property Journal archive
RURAL Funds Management has won a legal battle in the Supreme Court of New South Wales against Texas-based Bonitas Research, which did not participate in the hearing.
In the case where only RFF was the party present, Justice Hammerschlag ruled that statements made by Bonitas and its principal Matthew Wiechert breached the Corporations Act and “were false in material particulars and materially misleading” and were “deceptive and likely to deceive”.
“The Court will make appropriate declarations as to the contraventions of ss 1041E, 1041F and 1041H of the Act and s 12DA(1) of the ASIC Act by Bonitas and Wiechert.
“There will be a verdict for the plaintiff, damages to be assessed, on the footing that damages do not include profits made as a result of the contravention.” Justice Hammerschlag ruled.
The Court will consider the assessment of damages on 6 March.
Bonitas had previously said it does not recognise the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of NSW.
In September last year, Bonitas said: “You have commenced litigation in Australia and invited us to participate. We respectfully decline the invitation. Australian courts have no jurisdiction over us, and we will contest the enforcement of any orders or judgments you obtain that certainly will be contrary to the discoverable facts, as well as United States and Texas law and policy,”
Bonitas also said it was considering a defamation suit against RFF.
“However, United States Courts do have jurisdiction over RFF as a large percentage of its publicly traded shares were historically held by United States investors. In fact, prior to our initial report on August 6, 2019, United States investors had significant ownership of RFF shares and occasionally held more RFF shares than any other country worldwide, including Australia.
“In light of the recent affirmation of our opinions regarding RFF’s financial precariousness by a reputable and totally independent research firm, Bucephalus Research, we are considering a defamation action in the United States against your client. We appreciate we will have to meet a malice standard, but we are more confident than ever that we can do so.”
