Australian Securities and Investments Commissionv Sino Australia Oil and Gas Limited (in liq)[2016]...

Question

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Sino Australia Oil and Gas Limited (in liq) [2016] FCA 934 Case introduction. The duties/responsibilities breached (ex. CA sections 181 or 588G) and...

1 answer below »

Australian Securities and Investments Commissionv Sino Australia Oil and Gas Limited (in liq)[2016] FCA 934

Case introduction.
The duties/responsibilities breached (ex. CA sections 181 or 588G) and explain why the duties were breached.

Discuss and critically ANALYSE the court/tribunal decision and the reason for the decision in view of the Corporations Act.
Where possible and applicable, the relevance of the decision to the development of Australian corporations law or the impact of the decision on the operation of companies in Australia.

Member A	Member B	Member C	Member D
Case Introduction/Facts (~ max.180 words)	?
Duties Breached: -which section of the Act -explain why the duties are breached 9 contraventions of s180(1) but mainly can group under 5 issues (just briefly summarise): Shao failed to understand the prospectus documents, before signing them Shao failed to acquire knowledge about the disclosure requirements under the Australian law Shao failed to disclose to the Board of Sino (the first defendant) about the changes in company’s profit forecast Shao failed to provide proper reason for transferal of funds Causing or permitting Sino (the first defendant) to contravene the Corp. Act (~250 words)	?
Court Decision: -what are the decisions -reasons for judges to reach those decisions in relation to the above 5 breaches (~1000 words)	? (1-2)	? (3-4)	? (5)
Implications of decisions (in ASIC v Sino (in liq) [2016] FCA 1488, Shao is disqualified from managing corp for 20 yrs and pay compensation to Sino for $5,539,758) (~400words)	?

005_iinia5o-1n3lhznf.docx

Answered Same Day Dec 27, 2021

Robert · Accepted Answer

The Court pronounced that Sino had negated areas 674(2), 728(1) (a), 728(1) (b), 728(1) (c), 1041 H 
of the Enterprises Demonstration, finding that it:
1. Made false portrayals in its plan documentation in connection to licenses that it guaranteed it and 
its Chinese-based backup held;
2. Neglected to uncover that its benefit figure for the 2013 date-book year would be fundamentally 
not as much as conjecture in its substitution outline;
3. Neglected to unveil in its outline records the presence of an advance concurrence with the sole 
chief of Sino's Chinese-based auxiliary;
4. Put forth deceptive and tricky expressions in its plan documentation in connection to the presence 
of administration contracts it guaranteed to hold in China;
5. Put forth deceptive or tricky expressions in connection to a claim that it had gotten a total of $3.1 
million from the returns of convertible notes; and
6. Given false data to its inspectors in connection a Chinese-based auxiliary.
In connection to Mr Shao, the Court pronounced that he negated ss180(1) and 674(2A) of the 
Demonstration, finding that he:
1. Was engaged with the negations submitted by Sino;
2. Neglected to educate himself about Sino's revelation necessities and neglected to comprehend 
Sino's outline documentation; and
3. Had endeavoured to exchange $7.5 million from Sino's Australian financial balances to accounts in 
China with the end goal of propelling a credit to a Chinese-based auxiliary in conditions where the 
advance would have been gone;
In connection to Mr Shao's endorsing plan records in English in spite of not having the capacity to 
talk or read the dialect and without acquiring a full Chinese interpretation, Equity Davies stated:
"Mr Shao as executive of the Board closed down each of the outline reports. That expected him to 
illuminate himself completely and thoroughly about the substance of the plan archives to guarantee 
that the data contained in those outline records was precise. The disappointment by Mr Shao to 
guarantee that he could see, even in the most essential sense,

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Sino Australia Oil and Gas Limited (in liq) [2016] FCA 934 Case introduction. The duties/responsibilities breached (ex. CA sections 181 or 588G) and...

Solution

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

Submit New Assignment