Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Sons Of Gwalia and Minister Chris Bowen

Jump to new
C

condog

Joined
24 October 2009
Posts
1,948
Reactions
0
My god the minister chris bowen thinks that a 6:1 high court majority finding the directors who criminally mislead investors, that the fact they are found liable and shareholders have a right to compensation is wrong and wants to change the law retrospectively to prevent shareholders having such rights...

Can some one else copy this over to HotCopper or any other shareholder advocate forums your involved in....

I suggest anyone not knowing the case read about it at

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...-Gwalia-pd20100120-ZUTXM?OpenDocument&src=sph

Then if you think it stinks that investors are allowed to be criminally mislead by directors with absolutely no legal recourse....then contact the minister an tell him how much it stinks:

Parliament House
M1/24
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia

Telephone: (02) 6277 7200

Facsimile: (02) 6273 4406

Email: chris.bowen.mp@aph.gov.au

I never though id be saying it but for once i think judges reflect the thoughts of society better then our politicians...
 
Re: Sons Of Gwalai & Min Chris Bowen

condog said:
My god the minister chris bowen thinks that a 6:1 high court majority finding the directors criminally mislead investors is wrong and wants to change it retrospectively....

I suggest anyone not knowing the case read about it at

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...-Gwalia-pd20100120-ZUTXM?OpenDocument&src=sph

Then if you think it stinks that investors are allowed to be criminally mislead by directors with absolutely no legal recourse....then contact the minister an tell him how much it stinks:

Parliament House
M1/24
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia

Telephone: (02) 6277 7200

Facsimile: (02) 6273 4406

Email: chris.bowen.mp@aph.gov.au
Click to expand...

Strange isn't it condog. I always thought Governments were reluctant to introduce retrospective legislation except for war criminals like that Polyukhovich. Maybe the ALP have a whiff of some future collapses and looking after their big-boy lobbyists mates.

Incidentally Polyukhovich was also a 6:1 decision.

Just my :2twocents
 
Quite surprised that ASFer's haven't had a chomp at this!

Or maybe I'm wrong. Most ASFer's are pacifist trolls waiting to be robbed!

I can see an extravagant litigation bonanza just waiting to happen on this one.
Bring it Minister Bowen. :D

Bring it! :D
 
Wysiwyg said:
Check your thoughts Gumby. They may not be your own. :sheep:
Click to expand...

Oh no. They are my own thoughts. So much for the shareholder democracy
promised by these new labour bureaucrats!! Even for the people they claim to care about.
Self-pocket liners from what I can see! If you are on holiday. Look after yourself.
 
GumbyLearner said:
Oh no. They are my own thoughts. So much for the shareholder democracy
promised by these new labour bureaucrats!! Even for the people they claim to care about.
Self-pocket liners from what I can see! If you are on holiday. Look after yourself.
Click to expand...

But the sheep jumping rope. I like that. What I don't like is the ALP making smooth-sailing for the BIG 4 lenders.

Vote 1 the little guy.

DOG ****!!
 
Sons Of Gwalia Issue

Not sure what happened whether i forgot to post it , or it got deleted...so I will err on the side of caution in case it was deleted......Even though I thought it was completely appropriate and very relevant...

The sons of Gwalia decision was a 6:1 majority that rough terms found if directors are criminally guilty of misleading shareholders....then shareholders are entitled as equal creditors to other high ranking creditors......

This has two major implications...
1. Clearly share holders have more chance of getting some money back and directors may be laible....(the good)
2. Companies may be liquidated / woundup much sooner as the creditor to asset ratio is much higher (the bad)

The business spectator had a fantastic article explaining it this week....

Minister Chris Bowen seems to think its crazy to have a situation where share holders can go after directors who are found guilty of criminally misleading the investors....

IF you think this stinks and Investors should have recourse against misleading directors I suggest you make some noise and make it loud....straight to his office...

Obviously this is an emotive issue for some people who may be caught up in such cases, so how about everyone behave so this thread stays alive.....

By the way its no mean feat to be able to prove directors guilty....to my knowledge ASIC has failed to do so on almost every occassion they have tried....
So this ruling only applies in extreme cases anyway....

PS i have no vested interest in this argument and am not currently involved...I do hold IMF shares, which some think are affected, but i believe they are not and may actually benefit from such a change...my reason for raing this is im a shareholders advocate at heart...
 
Re: Sons Of Gwalia Issue

condog said:
Minister Chris Bowen seems to think its crazy to have a situation where share holders can go after directors who are found guilty of criminally misleading the investors....
Click to expand...

Chris Bowen is just another political hack scumbag who will end up working for a big 3 accounting or consulting firm. Probably never worked a hard day in his life like the rest of the dregs, trogs, terrigal elitist crybabies in the ALP. He doesn't give a rats about shareholders, his decision to do this is extraordinary given it's retrospective effect. The fact that shareholders have to line up with unsecured creditors stinks. You would think directors owed a duty to keep shareholders informed.

Most people who own shares certainly don't vote ALP anyway, so this decision isn't going to effect the supposed battlers they pretend to stand up for.
 
Re: Sons Of Gwalia Issue

GumbyLearner said:
The fact that shareholders have to line up with unsecured creditors stinks.
Click to expand...

Isn't that very fundamental premise of equity and debt market pricing? The heirarchy of risk determines the appropriate return. Equity holders line up behind creditors in the event of collapses, and that's why equity holders look for 12% returns vs debt holders who gets a return well below that.

If anything the original SoG judgment was a landmark because it changed that... and I am not sure I agree with that original decision. What if the creditors were also criminally mis-led? Why should they all of a sudden rank behind equity holders?
 
Re: Sons Of Gwalia Issue

condog said:
my reason for raing this is im a shareholders advocate at heart...
Click to expand...
Being a shareholder has never put you, as the owner, ahead of those that you seek to use their credit.:eek: That's just business fundamentals.

GumbyLearner said:
The fact that shareholders have to line up with unsecured creditors stinks.
Click to expand...
Thats just nonsense. Shareholders have always been after creditors. You seem to have no fundamental idea about what a company is.
 
Re: Sons Of Gwalia Issue

Trembling Hand said:
Being a shareholder has never put you, as the owner, ahead of those that you seek to use their credit.:eek: That's just business fundamentals.

Thats just nonsense. Shareholders have always been after creditors. You seem to have no fundamental idea about what a company is.
Click to expand...

What I meant to say was The fact that shareholders rights have been diminished by this decision in favour of unsecured creditors stinks.
The lifeboats on the Titanic weren't just meant for the Captain and the crew he employed.

Thanks for the correction TH. Always great to hear you are still around. Picking up on my mistakes.
 
Re: Sons Of Gwalia Issue

GumbyLearner said:
What I meant to say was The fact that shareholders rights have been diminished by this decision in favour of unsecured creditors stinks.
The lifeboats on the Titanic weren't just meant for the Captain and the crew he employed.
Click to expand...

:banghead:
 
Re: Sons Of Gwalia Issue

GumbyLearner said:
Just make sure when you hire the next employee TH you offer them stock & options as past of the remuneration package being offered. Now that's a business fundamental incentive worth working for! :D
Click to expand...

Xactly. That comment shows how clueless your argument is, as usual. Then as an employee of the company they can run it into a brick wall but as an shareholder still take money out of the company before the creditors that they lied to.

CLUELESS.

Shareholders MUST come last otherwise there is no incentive not to blow up or rob if the going get tuff.!!
 
Re: Sons Of Gwalia Issue

Trembling Hand said:
Xactly. That comment shows how clueless your argument is, as usual. Then as an employee of the company they can run it into a brick wall but as an shareholder still take money out of the company before the creditors that they lied to.

CLUELESS.

Shareholders MUST come last otherwise there is no incentive not to blow up or rob if the going get tuff.!!
Click to expand...


Do you think an employee/shareholder would run a company into the ground deliberately to send not only the company broke but also themselves?

MORONIC.

It's people like you who sound more than happy to line the pockets of the banks and let the gravy train fees of liquidators roll on without question.
 
Re: Sons Of Gwalia Issue

GumbyLearner said:
Do you think an employee/shareholder would run a company into the ground deliberately to send not only the company broke but also themselves?

MORONIC.
Click to expand...
hahahahahahahahha. Astoundingly clueless!!


Your talking in circles now. Directors send companies broke every day. You would have them lining up BEFORE creditors just because they own a couple of shares.

GumbyLearner said:
It's people like you who sound more than happy to line the pockets of the banks and let the gravy train fees of liquidators roll on without question.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Theres is no discussion on that. You trying to build a grass man here? (they are even weaker than a straw man!!:p:)
 
Re: Sons Of Gwalia Issue

Trembling Hand said:
hahahahahahahahha. Astoundingly clueless!!


Your talking in circles now. Directors send companies broke every day. You would have them lining up BEFORE creditors just because they own a couple of shares.

What are you talking about? Theres is no discussion on that. You trying to build a grass man here? (they are even weaker than a straw man!!:p:)
Click to expand...

Just as clueless as an unsecured creditor who doesn't do due diligence to check the liquidity and soundness of the company they are lending to? :p:
 
Can't resist pitching my :2twocents.

Any court decision which equates creditors with shareholders is fundamentally incorrect. I haven't had the time look up the Sons of G. case, but I can only assume the decision is rather more nuanced than that.

Pardon my bluntness, but treating ripped-off shareholders on a par with ripped-off suppliers and tradesmen etc is a Company Law 101 error that only a low-grade journalist, or the readers thereof, would dream of making.

Blurring the distinction between debt and equity means we can kiss the stock market, Capitalism, and the World As We Know It (for better or worse) goodbye.

Regards,
P. (who, I'm pleased to report, did get a pass grade for Company Law 101).
 
It's not only company law 101 but finance 101. You can legislate the risk appropriation between equity and debt holders all you want, the market will work a way around it by pricing things accordingly.

If shareholders get elevated to the same notch as debt holders, the simple outcome is that the credit will get more expensive, and that the equity return will be lower. The entire share market will work on a lower PE...

To me, in the case of criminally mis-leading information, the directors should face criminal charges (which they do I believe). But the corpse of the company should be carved up in accordane to the heirarchy of risk that founded the company in the first place.
 
Top