- Joined
- 4 August 2008
- Posts
- 362
- Reactions
- 0
Gets more & more interesting, Bolton just WON the court case:
http://business.watoday.com.au/business/rebel-bolton-wins-briscon-claim-20090402-9kkn.html
This is an excellent point - using Sunder's logic - BCS should not have been allowed to issue the stock in the first place without first checking that the original purchasing shareholders could pay (i.e from the original public issue). ...
I'm saying the fact that Bolton has gone in the press to already say that he cannot pay the XX Millions but is yet wanting to buy more shares, destroys that arms length, because you know about him and his situation.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm not saying that you have to check the solvency or ability to pay for the person you're selling to.
I'm saying the fact that Bolton has gone in the press to already say that he cannot pay the XX Millions but is yet wanting to buy more shares, destroys that arms length, because you know about him and his situation.
If you sell to him, and it's later found that he's commiting insurance fraud, essentially, and you knew that at the time, the sale may be reversed, because you knew.
I'm saying the fact that Bolton has gone in the press to already say that he cannot pay the XX Millions but is yet wanting to buy more shares, destroys that arms length, because you know about him and his situation.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm not saying that you have to check the solvency or ability to pay for the person you're selling to.
I'm saying the fact that Bolton has gone in the press to already say that he cannot pay the XX Millions but is yet wanting to buy more shares, destroys that arms length, because you know about him and his situation.
If you sell to him, and it's later found that he's commiting insurance fraud, essentially, and you knew that at the time, the sale may be reversed, because you knew.
You are saying that based on a newspaper article someone should decide whether or not to sell their stock to Bolton - thats just absurd.
Sellers have no more obligation to read newspaper articles about an independant party that wants to purchase their stock than they do to do any financial due dilligence on the purchaser. As long as the purchaser is acting independantly to the buyer and there is no commercial or personal relationship then I can't see where there is any further obligation on the seller in relation to this. (again I'm not a lawyer or accountant).
(disclosure - I don't hold BCSCA).
Sunder,
According to your arguments, it would be illegal to sell to MQG's $2 company because that entity is known to not have the assets required....
Good to see that ASIC is getting involved in this now.
http://business.smh.com.au/business...roup-over-disastrous-float-20090402-9l33.html
I think the results of this could start to get very interesting. The directors of this company appear to have forgotten that one of their primary roles as managers of a business on behalf of the owners (the shareholders/unitholders) is to maximise returns for those owners. To put it subtly, sending shareholders/unitholders into bankruptcy isn't consistent with this goal.
If they liked the business model so much they always had the option of buying up the stock themselves. They also had the option of suspending trading of the stock at a higher price point in order to protect their financing structure.
The arrogant disregard for the situation unwitting purchasers found themselves in, as well as the apparently misleading scare tactics utilised in 'fact sheets' as well as inconsistent information about the way they've communicated the extent of this liability to shareholders is unlikely to gain much public sypathy. I'm critical of ASIC for not getting involved earlier, but history has shown that when ASIC does get involved in a situation they tend not to pull punches if there is evidence of wrongdoings.
Looking forward to seeing how this all unfolds.
Trevor Rowe has an AM for services to Investment Banking.
I have won some work on the project and if the job stops soon, my company will be out of pocket a few $. However I really don't like the way Brisconnections have handled this whole debacle. There were ways and means of preventing this situation and Brisconnections chose not to act when they clearly needed to.
ASIC has raised the question as to whether a 50% vote is sufficient for the wind up resolution (today's AFR p43).
Any retail investor, so called mums and dads, who has bought a five letter stock such as B C S C A without investigating why it has 5 letters and not the usual three is a mug, unless they have an ulterior motive for doing so.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?