Australian Securities And Investments Commission Vs Harley Case Study
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Healey (No 2)
[2011] FCA 1003
Citation: | Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Healey (No 2) [2011] FCA 1003 | | | Parties: | AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION v BRIAN HEALEY, ANDREW THOMAS SCOTT, SAMUEL KAVOURAKIS, JAMES WILLIAM HALL, PAUL ASHLEY COOPER, PETER GRAHAM GOLDIE, LOUIS PETER WILKINSON and ROMANO GEORGE NENNA | | | File number: | VID 750 of 2009 | | | Judge: | MIDDLETON J | | | Date of judgment: | 31 August 2011 | | | Catchwords: | CORPORATIONS – penalties – declarations of contravention – pecuniary penalties – disqualification from management of corporations – contraventions of the Corporations …show more content…
Guaranty Agreement (‘Payment’) executed as of 31 July 2007 in favour of JPMorgan Chase Bank NA;
C. Guaranty Agreement (‘JPMCB’) executed as of 5 August 2007 in favour of JPMorgan Chase Bank NA;
D. Amended and Restated Guaranty Agreement executed as of 31 July 2007 in favour of Bank of America, NA;
(‘Relevant Guarantees’); (b) in breach of s 297 of the Act, the financial statements and notes in the CPL Financial Report did not give a true and fair view of the financial position of the consolidated entity in that:
(i) the financial statements and notes represented that the interest bearing current liabilities of the consolidated entity were $1,096,936,000 when in fact the current liabilities of the consolidated entity were $2,611,033,581;
(ii) the notes did not disclose the fact that CPL had given the Relevant Guarantees;
(c) in breach of s 298 of the Act, CPL Directors’ Report did not give details of the Relevant Guarantees when those details were required to be given in the report by ss 299(1)(d) and 299A of the Act;
(d) he knew or ought to have known that:
(i) the interest bearing current liabilities of the consolidated entity were substantially in excess of $1,096,093,000;
(ii) CPL had given the Relevant
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Healey (No 2)
[2011] FCA 1003
Citation: | Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Healey (No 2) [2011] FCA 1003 | | | Parties: | AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION v BRIAN HEALEY, ANDREW THOMAS SCOTT, SAMUEL KAVOURAKIS, JAMES WILLIAM HALL, PAUL ASHLEY COOPER, PETER GRAHAM GOLDIE, LOUIS PETER WILKINSON and ROMANO GEORGE NENNA | | | File number: | VID 750 of 2009 | | | Judge: | MIDDLETON J | | | Date of judgment: | 31 August 2011 | | | Catchwords: | CORPORATIONS – penalties – declarations of contravention – pecuniary penalties – disqualification from management of corporations – contraventions of the Corporations …show more content…
Guaranty Agreement (‘Payment’) executed as of 31 July 2007 in favour of JPMorgan Chase Bank NA;
C. Guaranty Agreement (‘JPMCB’) executed as of 5 August 2007 in favour of JPMorgan Chase Bank NA;
D. Amended and Restated Guaranty Agreement executed as of 31 July 2007 in favour of Bank of America, NA;
(‘Relevant Guarantees’); (b) in breach of s 297 of the Act, the financial statements and notes in the CPL Financial Report did not give a true and fair view of the financial position of the consolidated entity in that:
(i) the financial statements and notes represented that the interest bearing current liabilities of the consolidated entity were $1,096,936,000 when in fact the current liabilities of the consolidated entity were $2,611,033,581;
(ii) the notes did not disclose the fact that CPL had given the Relevant Guarantees;
(c) in breach of s 298 of the Act, CPL Directors’ Report did not give details of the Relevant Guarantees when those details were required to be given in the report by ss 299(1)(d) and 299A of the Act;
(d) he knew or ought to have known that:
(i) the interest bearing current liabilities of the consolidated entity were substantially in excess of $1,096,093,000;
(ii) CPL had given the Relevant