DOCSLIB.ORG

Clayton Utz Special.Indb

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Clayton Utz Special.Indb International Corporate Rescue Clayton Utz Special Issue 1 Long Tail Personal Injury Liabilities: The Australian Response Karen O’Flynn 5 Solvent Schemes of Arrangement in the Australian Reinsurance Industry Nicholas Mavrakis and Peter Mann 10 High Court of Australia Holds Failed Airline Accountable to Global Airline Clearing House Paul James and Polat Siva 14 Litigation Funding in Australia Karen O’Flynn 22 Creditors’ Claims against Third Parties Karen O’Flynn 26 Biting the Hand that Feeds You Karen O’Flynn 31 Creditors versus Shareholders: Primus Inter Pares? David Cowling 38 Insolvent Unit Trusts in Australia Jennifer Ball 42 An Administrator’s Power to Compulsorily Transfer Shares Cameron Belyea Editor-in-Chief Publishers Mark Fennessy, Proskauer Rose LLP, London Chase Cambria Company (Publishing) Ltd Publisher 4 Winifred Close Sasha Radoja, Travers Smith LLP, London Barnet, Arkley Editorial Board Hertfordshire EN5 3LR Emanuella Agostinelli, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle United Kingdom LLP, Milan Scott Atkins, Norton Rose Fulbright, Sydney Annual Subscriptions James Bennett, KPMG, London Prof. Ashley Braganza, Brunel University London, Uxbridge A hardcopy subscription is EUR 730 / USD 890 / GBP 520; Dan Butters, Deloitte, London online: EUR 730 / USD 890 / GBP 520; and hardcopy + online: Geoff Carton-Kelly, FRP Advisory, London EUR 840 / USD 1045 / GBP 625. Rates per additional hardcopy or online user are: EUR 165 / USD 220 / GBP 145. Gillian Carty, Shepherd and Wedderburn, Edinburgh Charlotte Cooke, South Square, London VAT is charged on online and hardcopy + online subscriptions. Sandie Corbett, Walkers, British Virgin Islands Hardcopy-only is zero-rated for VAT purposes. For package Katharina Crinson, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, London subscriptions, VAT is charged on the entire package. Hon. Robert D. Drain, United States Bankruptcy Court, For enquiries, please contact our sales department at: Southern District of New York + 44 (0) 114 255 9040 or [email protected] Matthew Kersey, Russell McVeagh, Auckland Prof. Ioannis Kokkoris, Queen Mary, University of London Special Issues Prof. John Lowry, University College London, London Neil Lupton, Walkers, Cayman Islands Price for individual Special Issues for subscribers: EUR 125 / USD 175 / GBP 105; for non-subscribers: EUR 165 / USD 225 / Lee Manning, Deloitte, London GBP 135. Online access to all Special Issues for subscribers: Ian McDonald, Mayer Brown International LLP, London EUR 375 / USD 535 / GBP 315; for non-subscribers: EUR 495 / Nigel Meeson QC, Conyers Dill Pearson, Hong Kong USD 695 / GBP 420. Online subscription plus access to all Prof. Riz Mokal, South Square, London Special Issues: EUR 995 / USD 1250 / GBP 740. Hardcopy + Mathew Newman, Ogier, Guernsey online subscription plus access to all Special Issues: EUR 1150 / Karen O’Flynn, Clayton Utz, Sydney USD 1450 / GBP 875. Prof. Rodrigo Olivares-Caminal, Queen Mary, University of London Advertisements Christian Pilkington, White & Case LLP, London Susan Prevezer QC, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & For advertisements please contact: Hedges LLP, London [email protected] Sandy Purcell, Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin, Chicago Prof. Arad Reisberg, Brunel University, London Copyright Jeremy Richmond, Quadrant Chambers, London Daniel Schwarzmann, PricewaterhouseCoopers, London ISSN: 1572-4638 The Hon. Mr Justice Richard Snowden, Royal Courts of Justice, London © 2019 Chase Cambria Company (Publishing) Ltd Anker Sørensen, De Gaulle Fleurance & Associés, Paris Permissions Kathleen Stephansen, New York Angela Swarbrick, Ernst & Young, London All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be Dr Artur Swierczok, CMS Hasche Sigle, Frankfurt reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any Stephen Taylor, Isonomy Limited, London form or by any means, mechanical, photocopying, recording Richard Tett, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, London or otherwise, without prior permission of the publishers. William Trower QC, South Square, London Mahesh Uttamchandani, The World Bank, Washington, DC Permission to photocopy must be obtained from the copyright Robert van Galen, NautaDutilh, Amsterdam owner. Please apply to: Miguel Virgós, Uría & Menéndez, Madrid E-mail: [email protected] Prof. em. Bob Wessels, University of Leiden, Leiden, the Website: www.chasecambria.com Netherlands Maja Zerjal, Proskauer Rose, New York Disclaimer Dr Haizheng Zhang, Beijing Foreign Studies University, Beijing US Corner The information and opinions provided on the contents of the journal was prepared by the author/s and not necessarily Editor: Maja Zerjal, Proskauer, New York represent those of the members of the Editorial Board or Economists’ Outlook of Chase Cambria Company (Publishing) Ltd. Any error or Editors: Prof. Ashley Braganza, Brunel University London, omission is exclusively attributable to the author/s. The content Uxbridge provided is for general purposes only and should neither be Prof. Ioannis Kokkoris, Queen Mary, University of London considered legal, financial and/or economic advice or opinion Kathleen Stephansen, Huawei Technologies U.S.A., New York nor an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy the Mahesh Uttamchandani, The World Bank, Washington, DC securities or instruments mentioned or described herein. Neither the Editorial Board nor Chase Cambria Company (Publishing) Case Review Section Ltd are responsible for investment decisions made on the basis of Editors: Charlotte Cooke, South Square, London any such published information. The Editorial Board and Chase Prof. John Lowry, University College London, London Cambria Company (Publishing) Ltd specifically disclaims any Dr Arad Reisberg, Brunel University, London liability as to information contained in the journal. ARTICLE Long Tail Personal Injury Liabilities: The Australian Response Karen O’Flynn, Partner, Litigation & Dispute Resolution, Clayton Utz, Sydney, Australia Asbestos and other dust diseases are not a new issue. 60 The distinction is vital because whilst contingent Nevertheless, events over the last few years have cata- or prospective creditors are taken into account in pulted them to the forefront of community and political assessing solvency, possible future claims that might debate in Australia. crystallise are not. The great probabilities are that if Interestingly, a combination of factors has resulted [the group companies] were to go into provisional in this personal injury issue being increasingly viewed liquidation now, then the only claims that would be through the prism of company law. This has resulted in paid by the liquidator would be those which have some radical company law reform proposals. crystallised and, after paying the doubtless heavy ex- penses of liquidation, there would be a distribution of surplus funds to the shareholder MRCF which would 1. Background be used for the purpose of the alleged charitable fund. The future creditors would get nothing and this may The James Hardie group was an Australian-domiciled very well be the case even if the claim matured the manufacturer of asbestos products. In 2001, long day after the liquidation commenced.’1 after it had ceased to manufacture asbestos products, it relocated to Holland (for tax reasons). It left behind Australia has a federal system of government. Respon- in Australia the group companies which had been sibility for workplace health and safety rests with State the manufacturers of asbestos products; those group legislatures, while the Federal legislature has authority companies were hived off from the rest of the group over corporate law (including corporate insolvency). and placed under the control of a standalone company The New South Wales State Government commis- under the terms of a trust. The purpose of this trust ar- sioned an inquiry into the James Hardie situation. That rangement was to use the assets of the former group committee released its report in September 2004. The companies to provide for the payment of claims for report recognised the legal position identified by the asbestos-related illnesses from Australians. Supreme Court and commented that: ‘unless some It subsequently emerged that the quantum of claims general reform is enacted that permits [corporate insol- would outweigh the funds available. The trustee ap- vency law] to deal with long tail liabilities, future cases plied to the NSW Supreme Court for directions as to the will arise that will have to be the subject of ad hoc leg- 2 appropriate course of action. In the course of dealing islative solution, if serious injustice is to be avoided’. with that application, the Court held that many persons injured through exposure to James Hardie’s asbestos products would have no standing as creditors should 2. The mass future claim proposal the former group companies be placed in liquidation: In October 2005, the Federal Government announced ‘58 On current authority, persons injured through its response to the issues identified by the NSW Supreme exposure to asbestos manufactured or supplied by Court and the inquiry report. It asked the Corporations [the group companies] do not have a completed and Markets Advisory Committee (CAMAC) to con- cause of action until damage is suffered and that sider and report on a detailed legislative proposal that usually involves manifestation of the disease … . the Government had prepared. Under that proposal, 59 This type of liability must be distinguished from companies, liquidators and voluntary administrators the case
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Review Class Actions in Australia
    SECTION ONE The Review Class Actions in Australia 2015/2016 Contents 03 Introduction SECTION ONE 04 Headlines SECTION TWO 13 Multiple class actions SECTION THREE 17 Parties and players SECTION FOUR 20 Red hot – litigation funding in Australia SECTION FIVE 24 Settlements — the closing act SECTION SIX 29 Recent developments in class action procedure SECTION SEVEN 33 Global developments SECTION EIGHT 36 Outlook – what’s next for class actions in Australia? HIGH NUMBER CONSUMER OF ACTIONS CLASS ACTION THREAT STATE THIS YEAR OF Rise in ORIGIN consumer class actions Largest FY16 settlement 35 actions DePuy hip launched 8 replacement potentially up to in FY16 in FY15 35 class actions were $1.75 launched in FY16, BILLION 29 following a historic high of WERE IN Highest value 11 $250 claims filed in FY16 MILLION NSW 40 class actions launched the previous year 2 King & Wood Mallesons Introduction Welcome to our fifth annual report on class action practice in Australia, in which we consider significant judgments, events and developments between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2016. It was another big year for new filings, with at least 35 new class actions commenced, of which 29 were filed in New South Wales. This is a similar level of new actions to last year (up from previous periods). 16 class actions settled (2014/15: 12), and more than an estimated $600 million has been approved in settlement funds. Looking deeper into the numbers, consumer claims have seized the spotlight in a number of ways: the biggest single settlement was the $250 million settlement of a consumer claim relating to DePuy International hip replacement products; the highest value claims filed are consumer actions in relation to the alleged use of defeat devices in vehicles, with one media report estimating the total value of the claim at $1.75 billion; and the bank fees class action against ANZ was a consumer class action that failed.
    [Show full text]
  • Envrionmental Audit Report
    INFORMATION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT REPORTS August 2007 VICTORIA’S AUDIT SYSTEM AUDIT REPORT CURRENCY An environmental audit system has operated in Audit reports are based on the conditions encountered Victoria since 1989. The Environment Protection Act and information reviewed at the time of preparation 1970 (the Act) provides for the appointment by the and do not represent any changes that may have Environment Protection Authority (EPA Victoria) of occurred since the date of completion. As it is not environmental auditors and the conduct of possible for an audit to present all data that could be independent, high quality and rigorous environmental of interest to all readers, consideration should be audits. made to any appendices or referenced documentation An environmental audit is an assessment of the for further information. condition of the environment, or the nature and extent When information regarding the condition of a site of harm (or risk of harm) posed by an industrial changes from that at the time an audit report is process or activity, waste, substance or noise. issued, or where an administrative or computation Environmental audit reports are prepared by EPA- error is identified, environmental audit reports, appointed environmental auditors who are highly certificates and statements may be withdrawn or qualified and skilled individuals. amended by an environmental auditor. Users are Under the Act, the function of an environmental advised to check EPA’s website to ensure the currency auditor is to conduct environmental audits and of the audit document. prepare environmental audit reports. Where an environmental audit is conducted to determine the PDF SEARCHABILITY AND PRINTING condition of a site or its suitability for certain uses, an environmental auditor may issue either a certificate or EPA Victoria can only certify the accuracy and statement of environmental audit.
    [Show full text]
  • Automotive Industry Group Regulatory Update
    Automotive Industry Group Regulatory Update June 2019 hwlebsworth.com.au Page 0 Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................2 1. Legislation Update ...................................................................................................................3 1.1 Competition and Consumer Regulations Update ..........................................................3 1.2 Road Transport Act Amendment (NSW) ........................................................................3 1.3 Road Vehicle Standards Legislation (Cth) ......................................................................4 1.4 Road Vehicle Standards Rules ........................................................................................5 1.5 Vehicle Exemption Notices 2019 ....................................................................................5 1.6 Victorian Motor Vehicle Duty Rates & Exemptions ......................................................6 2. Proposed Legislation ...............................................................................................................6 2.1 Franchising Code Inquiry ................................................................................................6 2.2 ACCC Collective Bargaining Proposal .............................................................................7 2.3 Proposed Changes to "Unfair Contract Terms" .............................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Apprentices Shine in Motorsport
    Official Magazine of the Motor Trade Association of South Australia March 2019 APPRENTICES SHINE IN MOTORSPORT ARE YOU EMPLOYING AN APPRENTICE? WE’LL TAKE CARE OF THE TRAINING The MTA’s Training and Employment Centre delivers high quality automotive training and is your one stop shop for a well-supported automotive apprentice. MOTOR MECHANIC AUR30616 Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology VEHICLE PAINTER AUR32416 Certificate III in Automotive Refinishing Technology DIESEL MECHANIC AUR31116 Certificate III in Heavy Commercial Vehicle Mechanical Technology PANEL BEATER AUR32116 Certificate III in Automotive Body Repair Technology AGRICULTURAL DIESEL MECHANIC AUR30416 Certificate III in Agriculture Mechanical Technology AUTOMOTIVE PARTS SALES AUR31016 Certificate III in Automotive Sales MOBILE PLANT DIESEL MECHANIC AUR31216 Certificate III in Mobile Plant Technology HEAVY COMMERCIAL TRAILER TECHNICIAN AUR31816 Certificate III in Heavy Commercial Trailer Technology AUTOMOTIVE ELECTRICIAN AUR30316 Certificate III in Automotive Electrical Technology Call the MTA Training and Employment Centre on 8241 0522 or email [email protected] Accredited training is delivered by For eligibility criteria, call 8241 0522 The MTA Group Training Scheme Registered Training Organisation or visit www.skills.sa.gov.au Provider Number 2293 MTA068.1DEC18 3 CONTENTS 9 10 14 A FAIR DEAL FOR INDEPENDENT FEDERAL ELECTION - MTA APPRENTICES AT ADELAIDE 500 MECHANICS MEMBER VIEWS 23 MTA trained apprentices took part The Hon. Mark Butler MP and Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Edition 338, 3 January 2020
    Edition 338, 3 January 2020 Chris Cuffe's 10 favourite articles of 2019, plus 2 Franking credits made easy Graham Hand Marks and the tax system explained in beer Howard Marks 8 problems the Royal Commission missed Graham Hand My nine all-time essential investing lessons Shane Oliver 10 reasons many fund managers are now blank spaces Graham Hand 13 of the best: reflections from an investor Hamish Douglass Advisers must step up and articulate their value Jodie Hampshire 99% of listed companies disappear worthless Ashley Owen Most investors are wrong on dividend yield as income Peter Thornhill How to include homes in the age pension assets test Anthony Asher OK Boomer: fessing up that we’ve had it good Graham Hand Sorry, there’s no real place to hide Graham Hand Franking credits made easy Graham Hand Dudley requested: "Please publish a simple article to explain company tax, dividend imputation, franking credits and double taxation. It would help eliminate some of the woeful nonsense written on the topic. My guess is that less than 1% of the public can describe the taxation of dividends, yet it is simple and most people have some level of understanding of imputation through the PAYG system. Let's make the debate more grounded in fact." Cuffelinks has published several explanations on franking, such as by Geoff Walker, Warren Bird and Jon Kalkman. Here's the short version: to avoid taxing company profits twice, tax must be paid at either the company or individual level, but not both. If it were paid only at a company level, high income people would benefit from the 30% tax rate.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Management Handbook
    Law Council of Australia / Federal Court of Australia CASE MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA CASE MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK 2 First published 2011. 2014 July – August: class actions, alternative dispute resolution and interlocutory applications chapters included; citations and hyperlinks checked and updated. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License. CASE MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK 3 CHIEF JUSTICE’S CHAMBERS FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA FOREWORD As noted in the original Foreword by the Honourable Justice P A Keane who was then Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia, when this Handbook was first launched in 2011 it was a very important development in the ongoing dialogue between the Court and the legal practitioners who practise before it about how best to manage cases before the Court. Since then the Handbook has been expanded, and planning is well advanced to extend its coverage even further. It is a remarkable achievement of the Federal Litigation and Dispute Resolution Section of the Law Council of Australia and those members of that Section who have been involved in its development. The Handbook is a practical guide about case management in litigation in the Federal Court. It provides information, guidance and ideas and discusses various tools and techniques that are available to the Court, both generally and in particular jurisdictional areas. It has been developed by experienced practitioners and has drawn on the experience of judges of the Court. It is not surprising that the Handbook has been enthusiastically embraced by the profession. Not only is it now widely used, but it is often referred to in the course of proceedings in the Court as the source of procedural and other propositions being advanced.
    [Show full text]
  • The Australian Financial System in the 2000S: Dodging the Bullet
    The Australian Financial System in the 2000s: Dodging the Bullet Kevin Davis* Abstract The global financial crisis (GFC) occupied only a quarter of the decade of the 2000s but, because of its severity and implications for future financial sector development, dominates the decade. The Australian financial system coped relatively well with the GFC, raising the question of whether there was something special about its structure and prior evolution which explains that experience. This paper reviews Australian financial sector performance and development over the decade, then provides a more detailed overview of the Australian GFC experience and its implications, and considers explanations for the Australian financial sector resilience. 1. Introduction The Australian (and global) financial system entered the first decade of the millennium preparing for a systems crisis, in the form of the Y2K computer scare, which on 1 January 2000 passed without event. But towards the end of the decade, the financial sector was faced with, arguably, its most serious systemic crisis ever, which the Australian financial system and economy weathered relatively well compared with advanced nations in the northern hemisphere.1 While the GFC occupied only one-quarter of the past decade (from mid 2007), it prompts the questions which this review must seek to answer. Was there something about the structure and evolution of the Australian financial system which explained its resilience in the face of the crisis; and was that resilience due to lower risk-taking by the banking sector in the lead up to the crisis? Did the distribution of risk within the financial system facilitate adjustment to the shocks encountered? What role can be attributed to government and regulatory responses following the onset of the crisis? In order to place the developments of the 2000s in context, this paper is structured as follows.
    [Show full text]
  • House of Representatives
    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Reference: Fair trading CANBERRA Monday, 4 November 1996 OFFICIAL HANSARD REPORT CANBERRA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Members: Mr Richard Evans (Chair) Mrs Bailey Mrs Johnston Mr Baldwin Mr Allan Morris Mr Beddall Mr Nugent Mr Martyn Evans Mr O’Connor Mr Forrest Mr Reid Ms Gambaro Mr Zammit Mr Jenkins The committee will inquire into business conduct issues arising out of commercial dealings between firms, including claims by small business organisations that some firms are vulnerable to and are not adequately protected against ‘harsh or oppressive’ conduct in their dealings with larger firms. 1. The committee is asked to investigate and report on: the major business conduct issues arising out of commercial dealings between firms including, but not limited to, franchising and retail tenancy; the economic and social implications of the major business conduct issues particularly whether certain commercial practices might lead to sub-optimal economic outcomes. 2. The committee is asked to examine whether the impact of the business conduct issues it identifies is sufficient to justify Government action taking into account, but not limited to : existing State and Commonwealth legislative protections; existing common law protections; overseas developments in the regulation of business conduct. 3. The committee is asked to examine options and make recommendations on strategies to address business conduct issues arising out of dealings between firms in commercial relationships, taking into account, but not limited to: the potential application of voluntary codes of conduct, industry self-regulation and dispute resolution mechanisms, including alternatives to legislation and court-based remedies, and mechanisms to support these measures; legislative remedies.
    [Show full text]
  • SUPREME COURT of SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Full Court)
    SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Full Court) AMACA PTY LTD v WERFEL [2020] SASCFC 125 Judgment of The Full Court (The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis, The Honourable Justice Nicholson and The Honourable Justice Livesey) 21 December 2020 TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE - DUTY OF CARE - REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGE - PARTICULAR CASES - DANGEROUS THINGS OR SUBSTANCES APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE'S FINDINGS OF FACT - FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT - FINDINGS ON ISSUE OF NEGLIGENCE - GENERALLY APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - RIGHT OF APPEAL - WHEN APPEAL LIES - ERROR OF LAW - PARTICULAR CASES INVOLVING ERROR OF LAW - FAILURE TO GIVE REASONS FOR DECISION - ADEQUACY OF REASONS The respondent plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from products manufactured by the appellant, James Hardie, whilst employed by fencing contractors retained by the South Australian Housing Trust between 1994 and 1997. The plaintiff was again exposed to asbestos when undertaking domestic renovations in 2000 and 2001 on his home at Pooraka, and again in 2004 when working on his home at Parafield Gardens. These products had been manufactured by James Hardie, and sold to and installed by others, many years before the plaintiff worked on them. The plaintiff was diagnosed with a rare form of mesothelioma in August 2017, when he was just 40 years old. The plaintiff's mesothelioma was, for the purposes of the law of negligence, caused by his exposure to products manufactured by
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Reporter
    Corporate Reporter 22 MARCH 2019 IN BRIEF WELCOME Items in this issue include: to Issue No. 57 of Corporate Reporter, Bell • Final changes to the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill, Gully's regular round-up of corporate and general • Cabinet decisions on the disclosure regulations for the new financial advice commercial matters, regime, designed to keep you • Regulatory fixes for the Companies Act, informed on regulatory Takeovers Act, Fair Trading Act, the developments, legislation CCCFA and other commercial statutes, and cases of interest. • Review of section 36 of the Commerce Act and other matters, and • The latest media releases from the New Zealand Commerce Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. For more information on any of the cases, articles and features in Corporate Reporter, please email [email protected] or call 64 9 916 9949. Disclaimer: This publication is necessarily brief and general in nature. You should seek professional advice before taking any action in relation to the matters dealt with in this publication. CONTENTS CAPITAL MARKETS • Final changes to the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill • Cabinet Paper on disclosure regulations for new financial advice regime released • Consultation on fees and levies in the new financial advice regime • New financial markets law introduced for compliance with international rules • Asia Region Funds Passport is live • FMA removes expiry dates on all FMC Act licences • FMA & NZX to review New Zealand’s capital markets •
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Court of Australia
    FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Earglow Pty Ltd v Newcrest Mining Ltd [2015] FCA 328 Citation: Earglow Pty Ltd v Newcrest Mining Ltd [2015] FCA 328 Parties: EARGLOW PTY LIMITED (ACN 055 664 769) v NEWCREST MINING LTD (ACN 005 683 625) AND OTHERS (NAMED IN THE ATTACHED SCHEDULE OF PARTIES) File number: VID 406 of 2014 Judge: BEACH J Date of judgment: 10 April 2015 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – representative proceedings – securities class action – s 674 of the Corporations Act 2001(Cth) – scope and application of s 33ZF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – application concerning first stage trial – role of institutional investors – identification and accelerated adjudication of sample institutional investor claims – application dismissed EVIDENCE – relevance – materiality – event studies – efficient capital market hypothesis – indirect causation theory – relevance of direct evidence of institutional investors Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 111AC, 111AL, 674, 676, 677, 1041H Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 55, 79 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 22, 33C, 33N, 33Q, 33R, 33ZF, 37M Cases cited: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd (No 5) (2009) 264 ALR 201 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd (2011) 190 FCR 364 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar (2012) 247 CLR 345 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Newcrest Mining Limited (2014) 101 ACSR 46 Blatch v Archer (1774) 1 Cowp 63 Cammer v Bloom
    [Show full text]
  • Vendor Index
    VENDOR INDEX Lot Colour Sex Breeding On Account of Abrett Trust, Palmwoods, Qld. 61 Bay Filly Helter Skelter............................................ Shyla On Account of Bileena Stud, Warwick, Qld. 10 Bay Colt Red Element........................................Largesse 12 Chestnut Filly Hidden Dragon........................................ Lomar 25 Brown Filly Drumbeats.................................................Nano 107 Chestnut Filly Hidden Dragon..................................Downdraft On Account of P. Byrne, Dingo, Qld. 43 Chestnut Filly Changeintheweather (USA) ...........Quello Corsa On Account of Charsons Park, Tiaro, Qld. 32 Bay Colt Daunting Lad........................Octagonal Heights 44 Chestnut Filly Conleys Choice ........................................Radio On Account of Charsons Park, Tiaro, Qld. (As Agent) 3 Bay Filly Daunting Lad.................................. Irresistibelle 45 Bay or Brown Colt Daunting Lad............................... Reset and Go On Account of Eden Racing Stud, Bowen, Qld. 18 Bay Filly Stromberg Carlson ..............................Mi Piachi 22 Chestnut Filly Maximum Appeal.........................Mont Vue Tara 110 Bay Colt Publishing ..........................................Expecting On Account of Gainsborough Lodge, Toowoomba, Qld. 63 Chestnut Gelding Conatus........................................... Smoo la La 69 Brown Colt Immovable Option (IRE) ................... Telecosser 82 Bay Colt Immovable Option (IRE) ................. White Feline 112 Bay Colt Conatus....................................
    [Show full text]