December 19, 2012
Griffiths J in Platinum Communications Pty Ltd v Computer Networks Pty Limited  FCA 1260 considered an amendment to application to set aside a statutory demand.
The plaintiff, a retailer, and the defendant, a software provider, entered into an agreement whereby the plaintiff would use the defendant’s software under licence and receive related services for payment . When the software was switched on the plaintiff suffered difficulties in many of its stores . The plaintiff claimed Read the rest of this entry »
November 27, 2012
Tonight the Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012 passed the Senate with amendments.
Those amendments are:
The 40 Government amendments:
(1) Clause 2, Read the rest of this entry »
October 11, 2012
The Victorian Court of Appeal in 360 Capital Re Limited v Watts & Ors  VSCA 234 dismissed an appeal from a decision in Watts & Watts & Ors v 360 Capital Re Limited & Anor  VSC 320 which held modifications to the 360 Capital Fund’s constitution were invalid for want to compliance with section 601GC(1)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (the “Act”).
The 360 Capital Industrial Fund (“360 Capital”) is a managed investment scheme under Chapter 5C of the Act. There are 180.63 million units in the Fund. The Constitution of the Fund relevantly provides, at  :
1) Clause 5.1(a): The Trustee could only issue units in accordance with clause 5 and subject to the Constitution.
2) Clause 5.2(a): The Trustee could not grant Options unless the Trust were Listed.
3) Clause 5.4: New Units were required to be issued at a price determined in accordance with clause 5.4.
4) Clause 13.5(a): An Option did not confer on the Optionholder any interest in the Fund.
On 31 May 2012 the directors of 360 Capital executed a Supplemental Deed Poll which Read the rest of this entry »
September 14, 2012
Yesterday the Corporations Legislation Amendment (Derivative Transactions) Bill 2012 was introduced into the House of Representatives.
It is a lengthy and significant bill providing:
Part 1—Amendment of the Corporations Act 2001
Corporations Act 2001
1 Section 9
Australian derivative Read the rest of this entry »
November 28, 2010
There are 12 bills before the Parliament or awaiting Royal Assent at the end of the 2010 parliamentary year. They are:
Civil Dispute Resolution Bill 2010
This Bill has passed the House of Representatives and, on 25 October, passed the second reading phase. The bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. It’s report is due 2 December 2010. The text of the bill and the explanatory memorandum are both on line.
Criminal Code Amendment (Cluster Munitions Prohibition) Bill 2010
This bill amends the Criminal Code Act 1995 to enable Australia to ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions by creating offences and penalties in relation to cluster munitions and explosive bomblets with some defences for certain circumstances and provides for certain authorisations to be made.
It is currently before the Senate. The text of the bill and the explanatory memorandum are on line.
Family Law Amendment (Validation of Certain Parenting Orders and Other Measures) Bill 2010
The bill validates certain parenting orders affected by the High Court decision in MRR v GR  HCA 4 and amends the Family Law Act 1975 to Read the rest of this entry »
May 29, 2009
Yesterday’s Federal Court decision in Grant Thornton Services (NSW) Pty Limited v St. George Wholesale Distributors Pty Ltd (No 2) throws up both a curious factual situation but the relatively little considered section 459(S) of the Corporations Act 2001. It is also a salient and sombre lesson in how to run an application.
Grant Thornton Services (NSW) Pty Ltd (“Grant Thornton”) provides accounting services. It provided those services to the “Paul’s Warehouse” group of companies. St George Wholesale Distributors Pty Ltd (St George) is part of that group but unlike other companies in that group it had net asssets. Grant Thornton issued invoices on St George totalling $91,305.50. When the invoices were not paid Grant Thornton issued a statutory demand. St George neither paid the sum nor applied to set aside the demand. When St George found itself the subject of winding up application it roused itself to apply for leave to oppose the application on the basis that there was a genuine dispute. Leave is required because, per section 459 (S), St George could have earlier applied to set aside the statutory demand because there was a genuine dispute.
Section 459(s) (pars  – )
To get leave section 459(s) requires that a court is satisfied that the ground is material to proving that a company is solvent.