Behaviour v structure : Tribunal’s AGL Energy merger authorisation

Section 95AT of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) provides that the Tribunal may grant an authorisation to acquire shares or assets that would otherwise contravene s 50. Section 95AT was inserted by the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Act 2006 (Cth) and commenced on 1 January 2007. In Application for Authorisation of Macquarie Generation by AGL Energy Limited, (AGL Energy) the Tribunal has for the first time granted AGL Energy Limited (AGL) a conditional authorisation to acquire the assets of Macquarie Generation from the NSW Government.

Cartels – What are they and how to avoid being part of one : the implications of University fee deregulation

Universities supply a range of services to students. These include most obviously, tuition services in relation to undergraduate and postgraduate courses; research supervision services in relation to research degrees; as well as consultancy services in relation to Government and industry work. For the purposes of the CCA, universities are trading corporations. They engage in trade or commerce through the provision of a range of services for reward. As such Universities are subject to the same rules and regulations that govern the conduct of other trading corporations, such Coles and Woolworths. As senior officers and managers of a trading corporation you need to acquire some basic understanding of the rules that govern competition in the education sector. In other sectors, companies generally undertake a risk assessment of those areas where they are most at risk of contravening the CCA; to ascertain in advance how problems might arise so that they can put in place strategies to mitigate the risk of inadvertent contraventions.

Sector-specific regimes

This Chapter considers a number of sector-specific access regimes that apply to infrastructure that exhibits natural monopoly characteristics. With the exception of Pt XIC of the CCA which regulates access to telecommunications infrastructure, they adopt the same form of negotiate-arbitrate model found in Pt IIIA of the CCA. In the event of a failure to negotiate commercial terms and conditions of access they allow the regulator to impose cost based (building block)tariffs. The regulator's decisions are subject to merits review and/or judicial review. The Chapter is divided into four Parts: • Part I considers access regulation in the electricity sector; • Part II considers access regulation in the gas sector; • Part III considers access regulation in the telecommunications sector; and • Part N considers access regulation in relation to port and rail bulk supply chains.

Kumarina and bidders voting in transfer schemes

Transfer schemes are an alternative means of acquiring control of a company to making a takeover bid under the provisions in Ch 6 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The recent decision Re Kumarina Resources Ltd [2013] FCA 549 overturned long-standing practice in relation to a certain type of transfer scheme. If followed, the decision would allow a “bidder” to vote at scheme meetings where the scheme consideration for the acquisition of the target shares are shares in another company, and the scheme results in a merger. But the bidder is not allowed to vote where the scheme consideration is cash. The article points out the difficulties arising from this decision and argues that it should not be followed. In providing a “no objection” statement, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has created uncertainty as to the approach it will take towards the bidders being allowed to vote at scheme meetings where the scheme consideration for the acquisition of target shares are shares in another company. The article also points out that in providing the no objection statement in Kumarina, ASIC appears to have ignored breaches of s 606(1) of the Corporations Act. There is a pressing need for ASIC to clarify its position and, in particular, whether or not it will provide a no objection statement in respect of future transfer schemes where a bidder (or its parent company) votes at the scheme meeting.

The defence of hardship to specific performance actions

The decision of Evans v Robcorp Pty Ltd[2014] QSC 26 is of interest as being an instance where the defence of hardship, in this case, financial hardship, was successfully pleaded in defence to a summary application for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. Equity has always recognised the defence of hardship in response to an action for specific performance which, as an equitable remedy, might be refused in the discretion of the Court (Hewett v Court (1983) 149 CLR 639 at 664). However, whilst the remedy is discretionary, there are certain accepted principles which have guided the courts in their application of this defence to particular facts. It is not a blanket defence to a claim for specific performance where the buyer simply does not have the funds to complete the contract at the time when settlement is called for. Occasionally, a radical change in, say for instance, the health of the defendant between contract and completion, perhaps coupled with a long delay by a seller in calling for completion not being the fault of the buyer might enliven the defence (Patel v Ali [1984]1 Ch 283)

Is there such a thing as an “irrevocable authority”?

The Queensland Court of Appeal decision of FTV Holdings Cairns Pty Ltd v Smith [2014] QCA 217 analysed many issues concerning the enforceability of an “irrevocable authority” signed by clients directed to their solicitors regarding the payment of money to a third party. The action also drew those solicitors into the litigation as they acted contrary to that “irrevocable authority” by paying the money concerned directly to their clients but upon their clients’ later instructions. The result probably confirmed what many solicitors have believed to be the case for some time but which had never been considered in legal analysis in an appellate court. The facts of the case would be common to many day to day transactions.

Hamcor Pty Ltd v Queensland

The Ipp Report recommendation that for claims for personal injury and death arising from the negligent performance or non-performance of a public function based upon a policy decision, could not establish negligence unless the public authority was so unreasonable that no reasonable public authority in the same position would have made it, was adopted in different ways by all jurisdictions except South Australia and the Northern Territory.1 This introduced the public law concept of Wednesbury unreasonableness to civil liability which caused much academic debate.2 Section 36 of the Queensland provides...

Mind the insolvency gap : lessons to be learned from audit expectations gap theory

There is a general perception that public confidence in the insolvency profession is low as the result of the recent unethical practices of a few high profile liquidators. As a result, the effectiveness of the current regulatory mechanisms has been questioned, leading to a review of the performance of insolvency practitioners and subsequent regulation proposals. The challenge for the insolvency profession is balancing the expectations of the general public whilst ensuring that the obligations and duties imposed upon them are performed to acceptable and realistic standards. It is difficult (if not impossible) for the profession to meet this challenge in the absence of a cohesive framework which identifies those issues that require further regulation as opposed to those that relate to general education on the insolvency process. This paper will examine the audit expectations gap theory in the context of insolvency practitioners and suggests that a model based on this theory provides an effective framework for evaluating the regulation of the insolvency industry.

Competition Law in Australia [6th ed.]

Competition Law in Australia, 6th edition provides a comprehensive discussion of the provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) dealing with the regulation of competition and markets in Australia. This book covers disparate topics, such as restrictions in horizontal and vertical agreements, horizontal mergers and acquisitions, misuse of market power, and access to services necessary to compete in upstream or downstream markets. However, the unifying theme of this text is that it is not possible to use a formalistic approach in applying the CCA. The decisions of the courts, and the competition authorities responsible for implementing and enforcing the CCA, underline the need to undertake a detailed substantive economic analysis of the effect of the agreement or conduct at issue on competition, efficiency and consumer welfare.

A sunburnt country – storms, surges and sea levels : of insurance and flooding rains

Increasing population pressures and life-style choices are resulting in more people living in areas that are at risk of inundation from rising sea levels and flooding. However, following natural disaster events, such as the 2011 Queensland floods, many Australians discovered they were uninsured. Either their insurance policies did not cover flood; or multiple (and confusing) water-related definitions led them to believe they had cover when they did not. Several theories are analysed to try to explain what is a world-wide underinsurance problem but these do not provide an answer to the problem. This research focuses on uncovering the reasons consumers fail to adequately insure for flood and other water-related events. Recent Australian legislative attempts to overcome insureds’ confusion of water related definitions are examined for this purpose. The authors conclude that Australian and other) legislators should set a maximum premium for a minimum amount of flood and sea related cover; and restrict the building and style of homes in flood prone areas.

Competition policy review : draft recommendations on competition laws

On 4 December 2013, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Small Business announced a “root and branch” review of Australia’s competition policy. The Minister for Small Business released the final Terms of Reference for the competition policy review on 27 March 2014, following consultation with the States and Territories, and announced the Review Panel headed by Professor Ian Harper. Under the terms of reference the Competition Policy Review Committee (the Harper Committee) is required to focus on three broad areas: •examining what can be done to create more competition in service areas such as health, education and intellectual property; •considering whether the structure and powers of the competition institutions (the ACCC , the NCC, the Tribunal and the AER) remain appropriate; and •examining the effectiveness of the competition provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) and laying down a broad framework through which the law can be streamlined and reformed over time.

Compensation sought for an improper caveat

Re Brooks’ Caveat [2014] QSC 76 is a decision of Henry J delivered on 24 April 2014. The decision considers the operation of s 130 of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld). That section provides that a person who lodges or continues a caveat without reasonable cause must compensate anyone else who suffers loss or damage as a result...

Caveating a mortgagee sale - The need for a uniform approach

The ability of a mortgagor to lodge a caveat, where an allegation is raised of serious impropriety by a mortgagee in exercising power of sale, may be a critical protective tool for a mortgagor. The mortgagor’s capacity, as caveator, to lodge a caveat over the mortgagor’s own title and the nature of the interest necessary to support the caveat are contentious issues. This article examines the different judicial approaches that have been adopted to date and states a case for a uniform approach to this issue across Australia in the future.

An Australian perspective on the ALI-III global principles for cooperation in International insolvency cases

In 2012, Professor Ian Fletcher (United Kingdom) and Professor Bob Wessels (The Netherlands) presented a Report to the American Law Institute and the International Insolvency Institute entitled Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases (“Global Principles”). This followed their appointment as Joint Reporters to investigate whether the essential provisions of the American Law Institute Principles of Cooperation among the North American Free Trade Agreement Countries with their annexed Guidelines Applicable to Court-to-Court Communication in Cross-border Cases may, with certain necessary modifications, be acceptable for use by jurisdictions across the world. This article comments on the Global Principles from the perspective of a jurisdiction which has adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-border Insolvency (“Model Law”). In 2008, Australia enacted a standalone statute, the Cross-border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) to which is annexed the Model Law. In that process, it made minimal changes to the Model Law text. Against the background of the 2008 Act, related procedural laws as well as Australia’s general insolvency statutes and recent cross-border insolvency jurisprudence, this article comments on the potential relevance of the Transnational Insolvency Report as a point of reference for Australian courts and insolvency administrators when addressing international insolvency cases. By comparing the Global Principles with the Model Law as closely adopted in Australia, this analysis is a resource for other Model Law jurisdictions when considering the potential relevance of the Global Principles for their own international insolvency practice.

Developments in court to court communications in International insolvency cases

As business increasingly operates on a global basis, courts are called upon more often to adjudicate insolvency cases with international connections. The financial collapse of Lehman Brothers Holding Inc (‘Lehman Holdings’) provides a recent example where courts across many jurisdictions were called upon to determine issues arising from a multistate insolvent enterprise. Lehman Holdings filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States on 15 September 2008. Lehman Brothers was the fourth largest investment bank in America and the largest company ever to file for bankruptcy in the United States. However the effects of its collapse were felt worldwide, including within Australia.