DOCSLIB.ORG

Dominique Hogan-Doran Sc

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dominique Hogan-Doran Sc DOMINIQUE HOGAN-DORAN SC Dominique Hogan-Doran SC conducts a national litigation & dispute resolution practice, regularly appearing in superior courts and tribunals throughout Australia. She has acted in many of Australia's most high profile public inquiries & related court proceedings. Dominique also accepts appointment as an Arbitrator and Mediator. ADMISSIONS & ACCREDITATIONS Appointed Senior Counsel 2015 Commenced practice at NSW Bar 1996 Admitted to the legal profession 1994 PRINCIPAL AREAS OF PRACTICE Commercial Disputes Corporations & Insolvency Financial Services & Markets Regulation Intellectual Property Property & Investments Public Law & Administrative Review Royal Commissions & Public Inquiries Trusts, Probate & Administration of Estates PREVIOUS PROFESSIONAL Lawyer, Mallesons Stephen Jacques EXPERIENCE Research Director to Chief Justice of New South Wales, the Hon. A.M. Gleeson AC ACADEMIC EDUCATION Bachelor of Civil Law (First Class Honours), University of Oxford Master of Laws, Bachelor of Laws (First Class Honours), Bachelor of Economics (Social Sciences), University of Sydney AWARDS & RECOGNITION Recommended Leading Commercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution Senior Counsel NSW, Doyles Guide 2016 Barrister of the Year, Lawyers Weekly Australian Law Awards, 2016 Sir Robert Menzies Memorial Scholar Fulbright Postgraduate Scholarship University of Sydney Convocation Medal PRINICPAL APPOINTMENTS NSW Supreme & District Courts Mediators Panels Fellow, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators nbn Co Ltd Arbitral Panel Member Essential Services Commission of South Australia Arbitrator Panel Member Trustee, Club Plus Superannuation Scheme Law Council of Australia’s Futures Committee Australian Member, G20 Business Dialogue Adjunct Associate Professor, UNSW Law Faculty 6 St James’ Hall Chambers, Levels 6 & 7, 169 Phillip Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000 Edmund Barton Chambers, 72 Wright Street, Adelaide, South Australia, 5000 Dialogue, 4 National Circuit, Barton, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, 2600 T: (+61)(2) 9236 8622 - F: (+61)(2) 9221 8995 - E: [email protected] - W: www.dhdsc.com.au Liability limited pursuant to a scheme approved under professional standards legislation SELECT CASES Regulation of Corporations, Financial Markets & Services, Securities & Derivatives • Regulatory & disciplinary proceedings before a wide range of courts, tribunals and administrative bodies, challenges to those decisions, license cancellations and banning orders, civil penalty proceedings, investor compensation, interpretation of financial documents, advising on disputes concerning financial businesses, structures and transfers of businesses. • All aspects of the life of a corporation from formation to dissolution, including mergers and acquisitions, takeovers, corporate finance, regulatory requirements, directors’ duties and shareholders’ rights and disputes, and directors’ and senior managers disqualification proceedings. • Regulation of retail and investment banks and financial products & services, advising on disputes arising out of banking transactions, including project, acquisition, asset and property finance as well as derivatives and capital markets. • For director of ASX listed entity in ASIC investigation for suspected insider trading in listed entity’s shares and continuous disclosure breaches; successfully obtained no further action letter (2016/17). • For the trustee of an energy industries superannuation scheme in the negotiation and enforcement of funding obligations of the State of New South Wales in the context of the “Poles and Wires” privatization of NSW state electricity network assets, advising with respect to obligations under Superannuation Industry Supervision legislation, Australian Prudential Standards, including determination of adequacy of funding of defined benefit schemes. • For investor representative (Mr Peter Warne, Chair, Macquarie Group) in long-running winding up of unregistered property development scheme in Victoria: ASIC v GDK Financial Solutions Pty Ltd (in liq) (2016) FCA (Middleton J); ASIC v GDK (No 14) [2013] FCA 459 (Gordon J); ASIC v GDK (No 11) [2012] FCA 1034 and (No 12) [2012] FCA 1035 (Dodds- Streeton J); ZMB Australia Pty Ltd v Warne [2011] FCA 311 (Ryan J) (successful defence of priority claim between scheme promotors and investors); ZMB Australia Pty Ltd v Warne [2011] FCAFC 65 (successful negotiation and approval of compromise of appeal); ASIC v GDK (No 8) [2011] FCA 997 (Dodds-Streeton J) (successful ex parte approval of compromise of priority dispute); ASIC v GDK [2010] FCA 710 (Gray J); ASIC v GDK (No 6) [2010] FCA 1092 (Finkelstein J); AVS Property Pty Ltd v McMaster [2010] FCAFC 81; (2010) 79 ACSR 89 (respondent to appeal by mortgagee); AVS Property Pty Limited v Western Retirement Village Management Ltd (In Liq) [2009] FCA 512 (Ryan J); ASIC v GDK Financial Solutions Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 4) [2008] FCA 858 and No 3 [2008] FCA 448 (2008) 169 FCR 497 (2008) 248 ALR 766 (Finkelstein J). • For Registered Training Organization & its principals in Administrative Appeals Tribunal proceedings for review of cancellation of Australian Financial Services Licence & banning orders: The Sharemarket College Pty Ltd & Ors v ASIC (2016) AATA (DP Cowdroy). • For ASX listed company resisting extension of injunction obtained ex parte by executive directors seeking to restrain termination of employment and proposed market statements (raising continuous disclosure issues): Cohen v Invigor Group Ltd [2015] NSWSC (Black J). • For National Australia Bank financial planner in Victorian Supreme Court proceedings in defence of claim by high net worth investors concerning complex financial product advice; matter resolved on eve of 2 week hearing: Hanley v National Australia Bank (2015). • For Senator the Hon. Arthur Sinodinos AO, former Chairman, Australian Water Holdings Pty Ltd, in defence of claim for breach of duty by minority shareholders, successfully negotiated discontinuance after strike out/security for costs hearing: TSDack Pty Ltd & 4 Ors v Australian Water Holdings Pty Ltd & 10 Ors [2015] FCA 931 (Katzmann J). • For Westpac Bank claiming under guarantee of commercial bill facility, case involved issue concerning jurisdiction of Financial Ombudsman Service and disputed alleged concessions made by bank officer as to whether debt subsisting: Westpac Banking Corporation v Nitopi (2015) NSWSC (Harrison AssJ). • For Macquarie Bank options trader in ASIC investigation and banning hearing concerning unlicensed discretionary option trading and falsification of records (2015). • For founders/minority shareholders with respect to suspected breaches of the Takeovers Code arising out of share transactions associated with a conversion of a public company to a private company. • For responsible entity of managed investment scheme and its CEO; case involved successor R.E. issues, director duties and insurance claims; case settled on eve of 3 week trial in Federal Court’s Queensland Registry: Leda Holdings Pty Ltd v Securcorp Ltd as Responsible Entity of Securcorp Mortgage Income Scheme & 2 Ors (March 2015) (Logan J) earlier Leda Holdings Pty Ltd v Securcorp Ltd [2013] FCA 1364 (Yates J) (transfer of proceedings from NSW to Qld). • For investors in NSW Supreme Court claims against financial advisor concerning advice to invest in highly geared, complex structured financial products; matter successfully resolved at mediation: Espire Creations Pty Limited & 3 Ors v Omniwealth Services Pty Limited & 2 Ors. • For Prime Media Group Ltd in relation to continuous disclosure obligations under the ASX Listing Rules. • For China National Coal Corporation, a Chinese state owned enterprise, in relation to compliance issues with respect to its wholly owned Australian subsidiary. • For founder and chairman of managed investment scheme MFS Group (now known as Octaviar), Mr Michael King, in defence of $423m class action by unitholders alleging breach of directors duty of responsible entity; successful compromise of claim received Court approval: see Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors v Waters (No 6) [2012] FCA 1412 (NSW) (Jacobson J). • For derivatives clients of collapsed financial services firm in relation to client money provisions and complex recovery/priority dispute with counter parties MF Global Singapore Pte (in liq) and Deutsche Bank AG: In re MF Global Australia Ltd (in liq) [2012] NSWSC 994; In re MF Global Australia Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 1426; (2012) 267 FLR 27. • For responsible entity of Addwealth Achiever Fund, a registered managed investment scheme, in relation to ASIC investigation. • For examinee in Australian Taxation Office Project Wickenby hearings into suspected tax evasion & other alleged criminal offences and in ASIC Investigation into suspected insider trading & other alleged criminal offences in relation to backdoor listing. • For specialist risk insurance business, in relation to ASIC investigation into conduct by 3000 authorised representatives with respect to sale of life insurance products. • For financial planner in review of banning order for advice to invest in Trio Capital: Tarrant and ASIC [2011] AATA 945; (2011) 56 AAR 257; (2011) 128 ALD 376. • For ASIC (intervening) in proceedings by trustee in bankruptcy in action against D&O insurers to secure indemnity for agreed ASIC compensation order arising out of collapse of telecommunications company One.Tel Ltd: Kerr v CGU Insurance Ltd; Donnelly v CGU Insurance Ltd (2010-2011) (Hammerschlag J). • For ASIC in investigation into affairs
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ASIC 2007–2007 Annual Report
    ASIC ANNU ASIC A L REPO R T 07–08 ASIC acHIEVEMENTS RECOGNisED 2007–08 Annual reporting Other communication Environmental management ASIC Annual Report 2006–07 Annual Report Awards from the Society of ASIC’s Sydney site is certified to Gold Award 2008 for overall Technical Communication’s International Standard (ISO excellence in annual reporting Australian and International 14001: 2004 Environmental from Australasian Reporting competitions Management Systems). Awards Inc. ASIC Summer School 2007 07–08 (program and directory) ASIC Annual Reports and Distinguished, Australia 2007 publications for companies Distinguished, International 2007 available from www.asic.gov.au or phone 1300 300 630 Your company and the law Excellence, Australia 2007 Consumer publications available Super decisions from www.fido.gov.au or phone Distinguished, Australia 2007 1300 300 630 Excellence, International 2007 CONTENTS CONTacT DETaiLS Letter of transmittal 01 How to find ASIC Visit us Melbourne: Level 24, ASIC at a glance www.asic.gov.au 03 120 Collins Street, Melbourne. Our key achievements 04 (For company registration, document lodgment, For consumers and investors searches and fees, visit the FIDO Centre, Chairman’s report 06 www.fido.gov.au Ground Floor, 120 Collins Street, Melbourne.) Financial summary 10 www.understandingmoney.gov.au Sydney: Level 18, 1 Martin Place, Sydney. Regulating during market turbulence 12 (For company registration, document lodgment, Major enforcement actions 14 How to contact ASIC searches and fees, visit Level 8, City Centre Tower, 55 Market Street, Sydney.) Consumers and retail investors 16 Email us at [email protected] Adelaide: Level 8, Allianz Centre, Capital market integrity 20 Phone us on 1300 300 630 • To report misconduct in financial markets, 100 Pirie Street, Adelaide.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Shareholder Class Actions in Australia – the Perfect Storm? 669
    2008 Shareholder Class Actions in Australia – the Perfect Storm? 669 SHAREHOLDER CLASS ACTIONS IN AUSTRALIA – THE PERFECT STORM? MICHAEL J LEGG* I INTRODUCTION Shareholder class actions are a recent but growing phenomenon on the Australian legal landscape. Seven out of ten new class actions are now shareholder related,1 and Australia’s largest litigation funder, IMF (Australia) Limited, is bracing itself for an increase in class actions over the next few years.2 The use of the class action for shareholder claims was foreseen by the Australian Law Reform Commission in 1988 when it recommended the enactment of a class action procedure in Australia,3 and by the Federal Attorney-General in 1991 during the Second Reading Speech for the federal class action procedure.4 However, shareholder class actions have only been regularly commenced in the courts since approximately 2004. Prominent examples of the shareholder class action are the proceedings commenced against GIO, Telstra, Concept Sports, Harris Scarfe, HIH, the Australian Wheat Board, Multiplex, Aristocrat Leisure, Village Life and Centro Property Group. If claims against insolvent corporations by shareholders are included, then the Sons of Gwalia, Ion and Media World actions may be added. The aim of this article is to explain why the number of shareholder class actions is increasing. Indeed, the thesis advanced in this article is that there has been a convergence of factors that has led, and will continue to lead to greater litigation in relation to shareholder claims – a perfect storm. The rise of the shareholder class action may be explained through the transformation theory of * Senior Associate, Clayton Utz.
    [Show full text]
  • 6.5 X 11 Threelines.P65
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-82684-6 - Corporate Collapse: Accounting, Regulatory and Ethical Failure, Second Edition Frank Clarke, Graeme Dean and Kyle Oliver Excerpt More information PART I Accounting in Crisis – a Farce to be Reckoned With © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-82684-6 - Corporate Collapse: Accounting, Regulatory and Ethical Failure, Second Edition Frank Clarke, Graeme Dean and Kyle Oliver Excerpt More information CHAPTER 1 Chaos in the Counting-house Corporate accounting does not do violence to the truth occasionally and trivally, but comprehensively, systematically, and universally, annually and perennially. R.J. Chambers, 1991, p. 19. When Bond Corp first announced its loss of almost $1 billion in October 1989 it surprised most of those who felt that they had their finger on the pulse of Australian corporate life.1 Perhaps it shouldn’t have been such a surprise, for it had all happened before, many times, over many decades, all around the world. Different charac- ters, different settings, different companies in different industries – but in similar circumstances – a common pervading regulatory philosophy – procedural input processing rules within a capitalisation-of-expenditure model coupled to sanctions for non-compliance, even when non-compliance made more sense in reporting an entity’s financial state of affairs. And it would happen again. Happen again, indeed! In mid-2001 it hit with added force as the media grappled with Australia’s contribution to the tech-wreck – the dot.com collapses of telcos such as One.Tel. But it was not only the new economy companies that were falling over.
    [Show full text]
  • Enhancing Corporate Accountability Through Contextual Ethical Exercises
    Enhancing Corporate Accountability through Contextual Ethical Exercises Adrian Evans∗ and John Howe+ The collapse of Enron in the United States and of HIH Insurance in Australia, along with the findings of the Jackson Inquiry into the James Hardie Industries medical compensation fund, highlight a perceived decline in corporate ethical accountability. Each of these events featured lawyers behaving unethically or otherwise inadequately in a broad social context. Realistic ethics education of law students, many of whom will become future corporate officers and directors, offers harm minimisation in response to rising standards of corporate accountability. Ethical simulations of this nature are a part of the wider arsenal of strategies to limit the potential for future corporate collapse and dishonour. This paper explains how it is possible to successfully expose law students to the reality of ethical conflict within corporate environments. On-line simulation of corporate ethical dilemmas allows students and trainee officers to anticipate what they will encounter in the corporate workforce and prepare them to apply alternative ethical models in deciding how to respond to those dilemmas. Monash University Law School and the Melbourne Law School are collaborating in producing two online exercises to introduce students to ethical pitfalls in directors’ duties and corporate tax evasion. The simulations are analysed in the context of initial student evaluations and the paper concludes with a brief exploration of the potential for future ethical education initiatives. Introduction Currently, Australian law students tend to learn about legal ethics, if they learn about it at all, as a distinct set of rules, rather than as a method of resolving moral conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethical Obligations and the Manager: Case Studies
    13 ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS AND THE MANAGER: CASE STUDIES by Paul Rogers Case Study: National Australia Bank Case Study: Australian Postal Corporation Case Study: Barings Bank Case Study: CLERP 9 Act Case Study: Enron Case Study: Foster’s Group Case Study: HIH Case Study: James Hardie Case Study: Leighton Holdings Case Study: One.Tel Case Study: Ponzi Schemes Case Study: Rinker Group Case Study: The Rule in Foss v Harbottle Case Study: The Sarbanes-Oxley Act CASE STUDY: NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK In 2004, National Australia Bank (NAB) announced losses from its foreign investment trading currency activities of approximately $360 million. Four of its currency traders caused the losses by placing NAB’s foreign currency options portfolio in a vulnerable position, based on the expectation that the US Dollar would stabilise. The market went the other way and the traders hid their true position, which grew worse before it was discovered. Accountability was the NAB board’s “hot topic” and a number of directors were replaced as a result of the ensuing media scrutiny and public disagreements. 1 Although the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority’s (APRA) report into the situation concluded that the losses were due to the collusive behaviour of the traders, it also stated: “However, it can also be contributed to an operating environment characterised by lax and unquestioned oversight by line management; poor adherence to risk management systems and controls and weaknesses in internal governance procedure” (Buck). APRA also found that there was an exclusive focus on process and documentation rather than looking at the substance of issues and taking responsibility for them.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons Learned from Organizational Crisis: Business Ethics and Corporate Communication
    www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 7, No. 12; June 2012 Lessons Learned from Organizational Crisis: Business Ethics and Corporate Communication Shuhui Sophy Cheng1 & Matthew W. Seeger2 1 Department of Communication Arts, Chaoyang University of Technology, Taichung, Taiwan 2 Department of Communication, Wayne State University, Detroit, USA Correspondence: Shuhui Sophy Cheng, Department of Communication Arts, Chaoyang University of Technology, 168 Jifeng E. Rd., Wufeng District, Taichung 41349, Taiwan. Tel: 886-4-2332-3000. E-mail: [email protected] Received: March 18, 2012 Accepted: April 19, 2012 Online Published: June 16, 2012 doi:10.5539/ijbm.v7n12p74 URL: http://dx.doi.org/ijbm.v7n12p74 Abstract This article examines the collapse of HIH, the largest corporate failure in Australian business history. The company grew very quickly and did not have appropriate operational protocols in place to support the business expansion. Lies and deception within HIH hurt corporate profitability, accountability and image. The HIH debacle is a story of a company that showed little concerns for its stakeholders. In this case study, communication strategies are explored to understand how HIH executives managed their corporate communication when the company was under siege. The results of the study indicate that denial and shifting the blame to others within the company were the prototypical strategies used, especially as HIH corporate executives tried to distance themselves from the wrongdoings. HIH executives were more concerned about avoiding legal liabilities rather than attending to issues of public opinion. This study also illustrates the close connection between ethics, organizational crisis and open communication. Keywords: organizational crisis, crisis response, communication responsibilities, business ethics 1.
    [Show full text]
  • 76 Buena Vista
    ASIC and its enforcement record since the introduction of the civil penalty regime in 1993 Vicky Comino* Introduction Regulators, under unprecedented pressure, face a range of demands, often contradictory in nature: be less intrusive - but more effective; be kindlier and gentler - but don’t let the bastards get away with anything; focus your efforts - but be consistent; process things quicker - and be more careful next time; deal with important issues - but don’t stray outside your statutory authority; be more responsive to the regulated community - but don’t get captured by industry.1 It has been 14 years since major reforms were made to the regime of sanctions relevant to the duties of corporate officers in Australia when the civil penalty regime, currently contained in Pt 9.4B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Corporations Act), was introduced.2 By adopting this approach, it was hoped that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) could more effectively regulate corporate misconduct and that civil penalties would constitute a significant enforcement tool. My paper will discuss the introduction of the civil penalty regime and its effectiveness to date. At first, Pt 9.4B failed to operate as an effective enforcement measure with very few civil penalty applications being made by ASIC.3 In the six years from 1993 * BA, LLB (Hons), LLM (Queensland), TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland. 1 Sparrow M, The Regulatory Craft (Brookings Institution Press, Washington DC, 2000) p 17. 2 The civil penalty regime in the Corporations Act, Pt 9.4B, was introduced by the Corporate Law Reform Act 1992 (Cth) and became effective from 1 February 1993.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics and Auditing
    Part I. Approaches to the critique of auditing Chapter 1. Governance and accountability: a legal approach to auditing Stephen Bottomley Abstract This chapter examines the legal context of company auditing from the perspective of the Australian legal setting for public company audits.1 It outlines the recent history of legislative review and reform, describes the current legal setting ± as set out in legislation and court decisions ± for company audits and auditor liability, and investigates the debates concerning auditor independence and the limitation of auditor liability. Introduction The legal regulation of company audits in Australia has come under significant scrutiny in the past three years, prompted by some significant corporate collapses in 2001, most notably HIH Insurance (which led to an inquiry by a Royal Com- mission) and One.Tel. In the wake of these events, there were four major and separately conducted reviews of the legislative framework governing auditors and audit work. These reviews culminated in the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program (Audit Reform and Corporate Disclosure) Act 2003 (Cwlth). The first of these reviews commenced in August 2001, when the Federal Minister for Financial Services commissioned Professor Ian Ramsay to review the require- ments for the independence of auditors and audits, the findings of which were published in October that year (Ramsay 2001). In addition to the impetus supplied by the recent company failures, the review was also prompted by a perception that overseas developments on auditor independence had moved ahead of the Australian requirements (Ramsay 2001, p. 6). Six months later, in April 2002, the Federal Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Audit commenced its own review of independent auditing, reporting in August of that year (JSCPAA 2002).
    [Show full text]
  • The One-Tel Collapse: Lessons for Corporate Governance
    The One.Tel Collapse: Lessons for Corporate Governance Author Monem, Reza Published 2011 Journal Title Australian Accounting Review DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1835-2561.2011.00151.x Copyright Statement © 2011 CPA Australia Ltd (CPA Australia). This is a preprint of an article published in the Australian Accounting Review. Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. The definitive version is available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/42673 Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au The One-Tel Collapse: Lessons for Corporate Governance Reza Monem Dept of Accounting, Finance and Economics Griffith University 170 Kessels Road Nathan, QLD 4111 Australia Email: [email protected] Phone: +61-7-373 53598 (Australia) Abstract: One-Tel was a major corporate collapse in Australia in 2001. At the time of its collapse, it was the fourth largest telecommunications company in Australia with more than two million customers and operations in eight countries. Analyses of quantitative and qualitative data from diverse sources suggest that One-Tel’s collapse is a classic case of failed expectations, strategic mistakes, wrong pricing policy, and unbridled growth. The company’s meteoric rise and fall was associated with serious deficiencies in its corporate governance including weaknesses in internal control, financial reporting, audit quality, board’s scrutiny of management, management communication with the board, and poor executive pay-to- performance link. Thus, the collapse of One-Tel has several important lessons on the role of corporate governance in preventing corporate collapse. JEL classification: M41 Brief biography: Reza Monem is Associate Professor of Accounting at Griffith University, Nathan Campus.
    [Show full text]
  • Enterprise Liability for Corporate Groups: a More Efficient Outcome for Creditors
    Enterprise liability for corporate groups: A more efficient outcome for creditors Author Dickfos, Jennifer Published 2011 Journal Title Australian Journal of Corporate Law Copyright Statement © 2011 Lexis Nexis. The attached file is reproduced here in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal website for access to the definitive, published version. Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/41586 Link to published version http://www.lexisnexis.com.au/en-au/products/australian-journal-of-corporate-law.page Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 38 SESS: 1 OUTPUT: Tue Jul 19 10:07:27 2011 /journals/journal/ajcl/vol25pt3/part_3 Enterprise liability for corporate groups: A more efficient outcome for creditors Jennifer Dickfos* In May, 2000, the Companies and Securities Advisory Committee published its Corporate Groups Final Report. One of the report’s objectives was to determine whether further safeguards were needed for those dealing with corporate groups, namely, minority shareholders and outsiders, including creditors. Of the Final Report’s 24 Recommendations, to date, only two recommendations, permitting the pooling of assets and liabilities in a liquidation of group companies have led to changes in Australian corporate law. Of the remaining 22 recommendations, 11 involved no change to the current law, while the remaining 11 recommendations have not been implemented. Unsecured creditors transacting with corporate group members may make inefficient investments due to: corporate group members misrepresenting the availability and value of group assets, when such assets are insulated from creditors’ claims; the increased opportunity for debtor opportunism to arise within corporate groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Directors in the Regulatory Enforcement Pyramid Recent De
    University of New South Wales: 2012 Directors Duties Seminar Greg Golding and Laura Steinke King & Wood Mallesons 20 March 2012 Index 1 The general risk environment for directors in 2011 1 1.1 Implications of the Global Downturn 1 1.2 The enforcement pyramid and a more finely nuanced environment 3 1.3 An impressionistic tour of the 2011 environment 6 2 Directors and class actions 6 2.1 Background 6 2.2 GIO class action 15 2.3 Telstra class action 15 2.4 Aristocrat class action 16 2.5 Multiplex class action 17 2.6 Centro class action 19 2.7 Some observations 19 3 Civil penalty proceedings 20 3.1 An introduction 20 3.2 ASIC v Rich 21 3.3 Fortescue 22 3.4 Citrofresh 23 3.5 James Hardie 25 3.6 Centro 26 3.7 Some observations 27 4 General criminal prosecutions 28 5 Conclusions of our analysis 29 © King & Wood 27 March 2012 2 Mallesons11028124_1 Regulatory Enforcement Action in the Global Financial Crisis - Risks for the Director 1 The general risk environment for directors in 2012 This paper considers the position of the Australian director in 2012 against the framework of the directors’ place in the regulatory enforcement environment. The purpose of this paper is not to undertake a technical legal review of the various sanction regimes that are applicable to the Australian director. Instead, the purpose is to make some practical comments on the position of the director by reference to recent litigation patterns.1 1.1 Implications of the Global Downturn The adverse conditions caused by a change in the Australian business environment have been apparent over recent years.
    [Show full text]