4. Arguments:
Some of the most relevant arguments presented by the plaintiff and defendants for this case are highlighted below. The arguments specifically form a basis for the laws presented in the previous section.
4.1 Astra Nominees make offer of securities
The plaintiff had alleged that the second defendant contemplated section 727 for the sale of securities and did not disclose this to the investors. ASIC also mentioned that Astra Nominees was in a position to sell the shares it had if the offers were accepted. This was completely obligatory with regards to the share subscription agreements between ASIC and Astra Nominees (Federal Court of Australia, 2015).
4.2 Disclosure under Part 6D.2
The defendants pleaded guilty on the fact that they exemptions were application under section 708 and hence disclosure under part 6D.2 was not necessary. ASIC on the other hand argued that when the Astra defendants were represented, there was documents provided to impose the claims made by them regarding the s708 exemption. However, these documents were not sufficient to claim that a financial licensee was appointed which did their task well (Commonwealth Consolidated Acts).
4.3 Small Scale Offerings
Furthermore, Astra defendants also pleased ASIC submitted that the Astra defendants’ pleaded based on the act of section 708(5)(b) which states exemptions of disclosure in regards to small scale offerings. From the previous sections above, it is clearly evident that the offers made to
Australian laws relating to personal property securities (“PPS”) have been messy for years, based on often incomplete state records which have never been centralised. The major rationales for the reforms are that the previous laws were inflexible, outdated, and prevent product innovation.[1] Personal property incorporates intellectual property , an important repository of wealth in the 21st century.
For the purpose of this report, a visit to the Melbourne Magistrate's Court was made on 22nd March, 2016. On this day, the second day of a four day committal hearing was heard regarding the matter of Omer Cicekdag, presided over by Magistrate Ann Collins.
The appellant company (Youyang) was trustee of a discretionary trust formed in 1974 for the Hayward family. Minter Ellison Morris Fletcher’s (Minters) had been acting for EC Consolidated Capital Limited (ECCCL) since July 1991, all work in connection with the drafting of the documents relating to the subscription for preference shares in ECCCL was dealt with by Minters. As part of the subscription agreement Youyang deposited $500,000 in Minters trust account. Minters was entitled to release a section of the fund from the trust account to ECCCL for the purchase of a bearer deposit certificate to be issued by Dresdner International Financial Markets (Australia) Ltd (DAL), which could then be traded on the money market. When the certificate was obtained Minters then had the right to release the remainder of the funds to ECCCL based on the subscription agreement.
In the matter of Sydney Project Group Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) and S.E.T. Services Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] NSWSC 881 (30 June 2017) (‘SPG and SET’) concerns the events involving plaintiffs Michael Hogan (H) and Christian Sprowles (S). Salim Mehajer (M) is the sole shareholder of both Sydney Project Group Pty Ltd (SPG) and S.E.T. Services Pty Ltd (SET). M appointed Kenneth Lee (L)
Case 1 is an appeal to the conviction rendered by District Court Judge Bradley on
Analyze Luxford & Anor v Sidhu & 3 others [2007] NSWSC 1356 (3 December 2007) as follows:
The appellant, Parkview Queensland Pty Ltd (“Parkview”), is a building contractor who commenced construction of a residential property development under a standard form building contract with Fortia funds Management Ltd (“Fortia”), the developer. Fortia financed the construction under a loan facility with the Bank of Western Australia Ltd (“BankWest”).
An offeror will have made an offer where it appears to a reasonable person in the position of the offeree that an offer was intended.
Your managing partner has handed you the Supreme Court of Queenslands’ decision in The Public Trustee of Queensland and Anor v Meyer and Ors [2010] QSC 291 and asked you to answer the following questions. You should assume you are answering questions for someone who has not read the case, so be sure to provide sufficient detail in your answers. You do not need to provide reference details for Part A of the assignment.
HOW DOES THE ADVERSARY LEGAL SYSTEM ENSURE RULE OF LAW, AND HOW DOES THIS DIFFER FROM MODERN MEDIA MISCONCEPTIONS?
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) is a state tribunal for the Victorians that help and guide to resolve disputes on different aspects including Building and Property, Civil Disputes, Equal Opportunity, Guardians-Administrators, Joint Property and Water, Legal Practice, Owners Corporations, Retail Tenancies, State Taxation, Business Regulation, Domestic Building, FOI-TAC and other Claims, Health- Privacy / Disability Act, Land Valuation, Mental Health, Planning and Environment and Residential Tenancies.
In order to determine whether Y and Z are subject to the proposed law, the
Both parties consulted their attorneys whose guidance instructed them that they did not have to disclose the information. The motivating factor in both decisions was to protect the livelihood of their companies. The facts of the information that had been revealed to each company had not been proven.
Intellectual property is a broad term that is used to refer to the rights that the owner of an invention or an artwork enjoys. An example of intellectual property law is the Trade Related Aspect of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), which gives individual rights such as patent, designs, and trademark. Intellectual property is contained in the Article 2(viii) of the convention, which led the establishment of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Literary works, inventions, discoveries, trademarks, and industrial designs are among the rights that are provided in WIPO. Intellectual property in Australia has a strong judicial support.
3. Summarize the legal arguments raised by the (a) plaintiff and by the (b) defendant.