The treatment of employee priority in a deed of company arrangement

This article examines one of the changes implemented in the Corporations Amendment (Insolvency) Act 2007 (Cth) . It is argued that the insertion of s 444DA raises some matters that go to the nature of the insolvency process generally and the operation of Pt 5.3A in a particular. The position of employees in insolvency is a matter that is the subject of much comment from a policy perspective. This article does not cover that debate but provides some initial explanation of the need to protect employees. The second part of the article covers the particular background to the voluntary administration system as far as employee rights are concerned as well as the arguments put forward by the government to justify the change in the legislation which inserted s 444DA . It suggests that there was little evidence provided for the need to protect employee priority rights in this particular way. An alternative explanation is given for the change adopted by the government. The third part of the article suggests that the manner in which the legislation seeks to better protect employee creditors is somewhat clumsy in its operation. It raises a number of questions about how the legislation may operate and argues that given the stated aims, some alteration to it would improve its effectiveness.

Seen but not heard? The significance of shareholders under Pt 5.3A of the Corporations Act

The article considers the interests of company members as stakeholders in the event of a company entering voluntary administration and suggests that while shareholders hold a residual interest, they nonetheless have an interest in ensuring that that the company is rescued and perhaps therefore have a role to play in the rescue of the company’s business. In doing so it argues that there is some inconsistency in recent changes in Ch 5 regarding the role of shareholders with some changes recognising their role while others have sought to downplay it.

An assessment of Georgia's National Integrity System : the GNISA project

Georgia’s ‘National Integrity Systems’ are the institutions, laws, procedures, practices and attitudes that encourage and support integrity in the exercise of power in modern Georgian society. Integrity systems function to ensure that power is exercised in a manner that is true to the values, purposes and duties for which that power is entrusted to, or held by, institutions and individual office-holders. This report presents the results of the Open Society Institute / Open Society – Georgia Foundation funded project Georgian National Integrity Systems Assessment (GNISA), conducted in 2005–2006 by Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development, Transparency International Georgia, Georgian Young Lawyers Association, in close cooperation with Griffith University Institute for Ethics, Governance and Law (Australia), and Tiri Group (UK), into how different elements of integrity systems interact, which combinations of institutions and reforms make for a strong integrity system, and how Georgia’s integrity systems should evolve to ensure coherence, not chaos in the way public integrity is maintained. Nevertheless all participants of the research may not share some conclusions given in the GNISA report.

Measuring risk and blameworthiness in the sentencing of criminal defendants : an exploratory study in Western Australia's Higher Courts

The focal concern perspective dominates quantitative explorations of judicial sentencing. A critical argument underlying this perspective is the role of judicial assessments of risk and blameworthiness. Prior research has not generally explored how these two concepts fit together. This study provides an empirical test of the focal concerns perspective by examining the latent structure among the measures traditionally used in sentencing research, and investigates the extent to which focal concerns can be applied in a non-US jurisdiction. Using factor analysis (as suggested by prior research), we find evidence of distinct factors of risk and blameworthiness, with separate and independent effects on sentencing outcomes. We also identify the need for further development of the focal concerns perspective, especially around the role of perceptual shorthand.

The application of the statutory derivative action in Pt 2F.1A of the Corporations Act to companies in liquidation under Ch 5 : Well oiled machine or is Pt 2F.1A in need of a tune up?

The statutory derivative action was introduced in Australia in 2000. This right of action has been debated in the literature and introduced in a number of other jurisdictions as well. However, it is by no means clear that all issues have been resolved despite its operation in Australia for over 10 years. This article considers the application of Pt 2F.1A of the Corporations Act to companies in liquidation under Ch 5. It demonstrates that the application involves consideration of not only proper statutory interpretation but also policy matters around the role and the supervision by the court of a liquidator once a company has entered liquidation.

Israel's airstrike on Syria's Al-Kibar facility : a test case for the doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence?

This article analyses the legality of Israel’s 2007 airstrike on an alleged Syrian nuclear facility at Al-Kibar—an incident that has been largely overlooked by international lawyers to date. The absence of a threat of imminent attack from Syria means Israel’s military action was not a lawful exercise of anticipatory self-defence. Yet, despite Israel’s clear violation of the prohibition on the use of force there was remarkably little condemnation from other states, suggesting the possibility of growing international support for the doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence. This article argues that the muted international reaction to Israel’s pre-emptive action was the result of political factors, and should not be seen as endorsement of the legality of the airstrike. As such, a lack of opinio juris means the Al-Kibar episode cannot be viewed as extending the scope of the customary international law right of self-defence so as to permit the use of force against non-imminent threats. However, two features of this incident—namely, Israel’s failure to offer any legal justification for its airstrike, and the international community’s apparent lack of concern over legality—are also evident in other recent uses of force in the ‘war on terror’ context. These developments may indicate a shift in state practice involving a downgrading of the role of international law in discussions of the use of force. This may signal a declining perception of the legitimacy of the jus ad bellum, at least in cases involving minor uses of force.