We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 18

Asset protection traps for directors & officers

  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • May 31 2013

There is a plethora of Australian legislation which sheets home personal liability to directors and officers. Below are some reminders of traps for

Exciting offers, pressure tactics do not get excited! ACCC v Excite Mobile Pty Ltd

  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • May 31 2013

The case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Excite Mobile Pty Ltd demonstrates the consequences of pressure selling tactics and

Statutory demands for part of a debt

  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 13 2013

The Court of Appeal decision of Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Garuda Aviation Pty Ltd 2013 WASCA 61 has confirmed, regardless of the decision in

Shareholder oppression Hunter v Organic & Natural Enterprise Group Pty Ltd

  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • January 25 2013

A recent decision in Hunter v Organic Natural Enterprise Group Pty Ltd 2012 QSC 383 illustrated an unsuccessful attempt to rely on the shareholder

Vicarious liability: agents acting “at the direction” of a principal

  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • November 2 2012

The Australian Consumer Law (ACL) provides further avenues in which corporations can be vicariously liable by expanding the range of circumstances in which an agent is deemed to have been “at the direction” of a company officer

Misleading advertising: the Apple iPad

  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • July 31 2012

In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Apple Pty Limited 2012 FCA 646 the court was required to determine whether an agreed pecuniary order on Apple Pty Limited was appropriate

“Pseudo” directors and the James Hardie decisions consequences for a general counselsecretary

  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • May 31 2012

On 3 May 2012, the High Court handed down its decisions in ASIC v Hellicar & Ors and ASIC v Shafron holding that seven non-executive directors and the company secretarygeneral counsel of James Hardie Industries Ltd (Company) breached their duties as directors or officers under the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act

Australian position on directors and officers’ duties and class actions

  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • May 14 2012

Of even more interest to underwriters than some of the recent court decisions is the announcement that on 9 May shopping centre owner Centro and its former auditor PwC have agreed to a record $200 million settlement of a class action by shareholders

ASIC and AAT share tough approach on phoenix operators

  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • April 26 2012

In Peter Grossman v Australian Securities and Investment Commission 2011 AATA 6, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal upheld a 5-year disqualification period against former director Mr Grossman who was at the helm of 3 companies that met financial demise

Warning: decision pending for General Counsel?

  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • April 26 2012

The decision for the James Hardie (JHI) appeal of a number of non-executive directors against ASIC in October 2011 is soon to be handed down