Diamond Conway Lawyers

Diamond Conway provide a range of Legal services to assist you.
The expertise of our lawyers covers a diverse range of legal issues.
We deliver comprehensive practical advice to assist clients achieve the best possible outcome.
If you are seeking Solid, Professional advice with any kind of Legal matter, Diamond Conway's Legal
team of Lawyers can help.

Call us today on 02 9222 8000.

DC Alerts

Below you will find the latest DC Alerts

457 Laws Get Tough!

On 27 June 2013 the Government’s proposed changes to the subclass 457 visa program set out in the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visa) Bill 2013 passed through the Senate. The Bill is currently awaiting royal assent and it is likely that the changes will take effect as a matter of priority. 

The changes will not affect Australian businesses with current sponsorship approval in place, or subclass 457 visa holders who have already been sponsored. Rather, the changes will only affect:

  • any Australian businesses seeking approval to sponsor foreign employees under the subclass 457 visa program;
  • pre-approved business sponsors seeking to nominate any new occupations/positions to be filled; and
  • any new subclass 457 visa candidates Australian businesses wish to sponsor under the program. 
The Changes

Essentially, the changes focus on the following:
  • introducing ‘genuineness criterion’ which requires that a nominated position fits within the scope of the activities of the sponsoring business;
  • increasing the market salary exemption from $180,000 to $250,000 (per annum). This will only apply to organisations which sponsor highly paid foreign employees, and is geared towards ensuring that the recruitment and sponsorship of such individuals does not exclude employment opportunities for similarly skilled high-level Australian employees who may demand a higher rate of remuneration;
  • removing the English language exemption for certain occupations. This may mean that subclass 457 candidates (from non-English speaking countries) who are to be sponsored in occupations which were previously exempt from the English language requirements, will now be forced to submit evidence of their competency in English (via an IELTS or other approved English language testing systems). However, occupations/positions attracting remuneration above $92,000 per annum will remain exempt;
  • reintroducing a Labour Market Testing (‘LMT’) requirement for all new occupations/positions nominated, unless the occupation is subject to an exemption. At this stage, ANZSCO series 1 – 2 occupations are exempt, but there is an intention to impose LMT on a few ‘generalist’ occupations which may fall within a number of series 1 – 2 occupations. The LMT requirement will mean that businesses seeking to sponsor a subclass 457 candidate under an occupation that is not ‘exempt’ will now be required to evidence the efforts they have undertaken to locate a  suitably qualified local candidate to fill the role, and why this has not been possible. The lists of exempt occupations have yet to be released, as is the finer detail of the LMT requirement;
  • making a sponsor’s training commitment under the existing training benchmarks an
    enforceable obligation for the duration of the sponsorship period (which is currently 3 years). This means that the DIAC will monitor a sponsor’s compliance with the relevant training benchmark satisfied:
    • Benchmark A: contribution to an approved Industry Training Fund amounting to no less than 2% of payroll for the 12 month period immediately prior to application for Standard Business Sponsorship;
    • Benchmark B: training expenditure amounting to no less than 1% of payroll for the 12 months immediately before an application for approval of Standard
      Business Sponsorship;
  • removing the ability of subclass 457 visa-holders to be on-hired to an unrelated entity unless there is a Labour Agreement in place;
  • requiring businesses applying for Standard Business Sponsorship approval to specify the number of nominations (i.e., positions) to be filled during the lifetime of the sponsorship;
  • increasing the regulatory and compliance powers of the DIAC to ensure that Australian labour market standards continue to be met by all sponsors and that subclass 457 visa-holders are not exploited by their sponsors, nor does their employment take away opportunities from Australian workers. 

If you are affected by any of these changes or have any concerns about your ongoing eligibility as either a Sponsor or a subclass 457 applicant, call Diamond Conway Lawyers on (02) 9222 8000 to speak to an immigration specialist today!

Kim Tuaine | Senior Associate

 Download (PDF) For more information, contact us:
Level 7, 9 Hunter Street Sydney NSW 2000
T: 02 9222 8000 F: 02 9222 8008 DX: 707 SYDNEY

click here to read more
Nomination Requirements and the Significant Investor Visa

So, what do the States really want?

The Significant Investor Visa arrangements require that applicants for the provisional 188 and subsequent 888 permanent residence visas have state nomination in place.

This means that even if an Investor has a cool $5 million to invest in ‘complying investments’ in Australia they still have to secure state approval in the form of a nomination. The nomination process is separate from the Department of Immigration & Citizenship’s visa requirements and allows each state to set it’s own criteria for the approval of the essential ‘state nomination’.

One would assume that the potential to capture such large investment opportunities would mean that the states would be vying for opportunities to ‘romance’ Significant Investors into actively seeking their nomination, but is this really the case?

New South Wales it seems, wants a $1.5 million cut and will approve NSW nomination for an Investor under the provisional 188 visa if the Investor can:

  • Demonstrate $5 million in unencumbered, lawfully acquired assets for transfer to Australia;
  • Declares that part of the complying investment made will include at least a $1.5 million investment in NSW Waratah Bonds;
  • Make a commitment to spend at least 160 days in Australia within the period of your 188 visa

In order to ensure that NSW state nomination is in force for the permanent 888 Significant Investor Visa, Investors must be able to demonstrate that they satisfy basic visa criteria with the additional requirement of evidencing an investment of $1.5 million in NSW Waratah Bonds in the previous 4 years1.

Victoria is a little less demanding and appears to be more flexible in the way an applicant for state Nomination will be assessed. Victoria emphasises that they will evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis and may take into account:

  • The Investor’s business background;
  • Potential benefits to the Victorian economy which may arise as a result of the choice of investment;
  • Whether or not the Investor intends on actually settling in Victoria;
  • The Investor’s broader business agenda in Victoria; and
  • Any previous connection the Investor may have with Victoria (prior visits etc…).

Potential Investors seeking Victorian nomination must also:

  • submit full written details of their complying investment;
  • demonstrate that have sufficient funds (ie, $200,000) for transfer to Victoria within 24 months of visa ‘activation’ for ‘settlement related expenses’;
  • agree to participate in any surveys the Victorian Government may initiate over the duration of the visa and for five years after grant of permanent residency; and
  • maintain residence in Victoria.

Victorian state nomination for the permanent residence component appears to be dependent on Investors satisfying basic visa criteria as well as the aforementioned requirements2.

Queensland is keen to secure Investors by promoting the state as a destination for Significant Investors. It appears as though Queensland doesn’t have any hard or fast rules when it comes to approving a nomination. Rather, any ‘high net worth’ individual who undertakes to invest and live in Queensland appears to be capable of securing a nomination. Remarkably Queensland is courting Investors by marketing itself as offering:

…a range of business advantages including a stable economy, supportive government, and a solid growth forecast. Queensland's low operating costs, highly skilled workforce and strategic Asia-Pacific location create an attractive investment destination. Queensland business owners and investors enjoy:

  • a dynamic, innovative and stable economy with the most competitive payroll tax regime in Australia, including tax breaks for employers of apprentices and trainees
  • a highly skilled workforce in strong, diverse industries
  • an idyllic lifestyle3.

South Australia is hoping to really get to know their Significant Investors and offers Investors the opportunity of visiting South Australia and meeting personally with their business migration representative prior to applying for nomination approval. It seems that South Australia want to soften the blow by telling Investors in person that they must undertake to invest ‘the required amount in South Australian business for a minimum of 2 out of the four years’ in order to obtain nomination approval…The ‘required’ amount is a not so paltry:

$3 million investment in South Australian ASIC registered proprietary business for any 2 years in the 4 years of the provisional 188 visa, that undertakes its business in South Australia4.

Investors also have to ensure that they comply with the South Australia government’s 6 monthly surveys in order to proceed to the permanent 888 visa.

Western Australia appears to have adopted a relatively straightforward approach in determining whether or not to grant state nomination. Essentially, an Investor must meet basic visa criteria and:

  • possess an additional $50,000 for settlement purposes;
  • applications will be considered on a case-by-case basis; and
  • any contributions to the Western Australian economy will be ‘prime factor considered for approval of State nomination’5.

Tasmania has adopted perhaps the most flexible criteria for nomination approval under the Significant Investor arrangements. Investors seeking nomination approval from Tasmania only need demonstrate:

  • they meet basic visa requirements;
  • how the ‘complying investment’ is of benefit to Tasmania; and
  • undertake to complete regular business surveys from the Tasmanian Government.

Investors do not have to reside in Tasmania6.

Northern Territory had not at the time of writing, finalised their criteria for state nomination under the Significant Investor arrangements. After a conversation with the relevant people within Department of Business we can reveal that the Northern Territory’s position is that any Significant Investor who meets basic visa criteria and possesses a genuine intention of investing in the Northern Territory (in a managed fund, direct company investment or Territory Bonds) will in all likelihood secure nomination. Interestingly the Northern Territory is not overly concerned with an Investor’s physical residence. It appears that the primary consideration in the approval of Territory nomination is that the ‘complying investment’ must be of direct benefit to the Northern Territory.

The Northern Territory’s finalised nomination criteria under the Significant Investor arrangements will be publicly available later in February 20137.

The Australian Capital Territory wants to get to know their potential Investors as well, and requires that all potential Investors first meet with the ACT Government to discuss the proposed investment prior to lodging the nomination. Additionally, nomination approval requires that Investors demonstrate satisfaction of the following:

  • basic visa requirements; and
  • that the proposed investment gives rise to economic benefit to the ACT in an ‘innovation or development context’.

Securing ACT nomination for the Significant Investor (permanent residence) visa is dependent on Investors being able to demonstrate that there is continuing benefit to the ACT in respect of the ‘complying investments’8.

If you are a Significant Investor please contact us to discuss your state nomination application today!

Please refer to our previous News Alert on the 5 Million Dollar Visa for further information on the basic requirements for the Significant Investor Visa (sc188 and 888) including what is considered to be a ‘complying investment’.

1 http://www.business.nsw.gov.au/live-and-work-in-nsw/visa-and-migration/business-migration/significant-investor-visa
2 http://www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au/visas-and-immigrating/business-visas/business-innovation-and-investment-program#188C
3 http://www.workliveplay.qld.gov.au/dsdweb/v4/apps/web/content.cfm?id=3226
4 https://www.migration.sa.gov.au/significant_investor_888 also refer to: https://www.migration.sa.gov.au/significant_investor_188
5 http://www.businessmigration.wa.gov.au/?page=visa-188-significant-investor-stream
6 http://www.migration.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/68213/Significant_investor_subclass_188_stream.pdf
7 Once finalised requirements will be available via: http://www.migration.nt.gov.au/visa/business.html
8 http://www.canberrayourfuture.com.au/workspace/uploads/documents/188-significant-investor-guidelines-jan-13.doc

Kim Tuaine | Senior Associate



Download (PDF) For more information, contact us:
Level 7, 9 Hunter Street Sydney NSW 2000
T: 02 9222 8000 F: 02 9222 8008 DX: 707 SYDNEY

click here to read more
The 5 Million Dollar Visa!

Got a Spare 5 Million? Buy your way into Australia Today!

On 24 November the Minister for Immigration & Citizenship rolled out the Significant Investor Provisional-to-Permanent Visa arrangements under the new Business Innovation and Investor Stream.

The new Significant Investor arrangements aim to attract highly successful, and prominent international business people to invest no less than $5,000,000 in a ‘complying investment’ in Australia. The funds available to invest must be unencumbered and have been lawfully acquired.

A ‘complying investment’ is essentially any of the following:

  • An investment in a government bond (Commonwealth, State or Territory); or
  • A direct investment in an Australian company that:
    • is not publicly listed
    • has not been established for the sole purpose of being a recipient of the funds;
    • is an ownership interest in the Australian company; or
    • is an investment in a managed fund for any of the following purposes in Australia:
      • infrastructure projects;
      • cash held by deposit taking institutions;
      • bonds, equity, hybrids or other corporate debt in companies and trusts listed on any Australian Stock Exchange;
      • bonds or term deposits
      • real estate
      • agribusiness
      • any other ASIC regulated managed funds that invest in the above investments

An individual seeking to apply for this visa must first have secured the support of a State or Territory government (in the form of a ‘Nomination’) and have been invited to apply by the Minister. Invitations are issued if the Minister is satisfied with a potential applicant’s Expression of Interest submitted via DIAC’s Skill Select portal.

Applicants must go through a two stage provisional-to-permanent visa process with grant of the permanent visa being dependent on the maintenance of the ‘complying investment’ and having been physically present in Australia for a specified period prior to the permanent application.

The two-staged provisional-permanent arrangements for this visa and the relatively relaxed residency requirements (in respect of grant of the permanent visa) may give rise to significant tax benefits to any potential investor applicants under these arrangements.

If you think you are a Significant Investor call our offices to arrange a meeting with one of our specialist Immigration Lawyers today.

Kim Tuaine | Senior Associate



Download (PDF) For more information, contact us:
Level 7, 9 Hunter Street Sydney NSW 2000
T: 02 9222 8000 F: 02 9222 8008 DX: 707 SYDNEY

click here to read more
The National Business Name Register

The new rules will apply to any business that sells goods or services to consumers in trade or commerce.

Has your business registered its business name? ASIC is making life easier by cutting the red tape…

Key Points

  • In NSW the Business Names Act 2002 (NSW) is being replaced by the Business Names Registration Act 2011 (Cth). Similar State and Territory laws to the NSW legislation are making way for the new nationalised system of business name registration.
  • The changes are an attempt by ASIC to improve efficiency and remove red tape surrounding business name registration and compliance.
  • The nationalised register shall commence from 28 May 2012 assuming the smooth legislative passage through State and Territory parliaments.

Summary

1. The new ASIC register shall allow businesses to register their business name with a single national register to obtain 'national registration status'.

2. Business names that are currently registered under the State and Territory systems shall automatically be transferred across to the new register.

3. If a business name is due for renewal under the State and Territory system before the new nationalised register commences it is recommended that these businesses re-register their business name as soon as possible. If they do not before the new register commences they may not be able to protect their rights.

4. Business entities must register their business name under the current law. Under the soon to be proclaimed legislation this requirement shall continue unless an exemption applies.
The exemptions include the following:

  • The entity is an individual and the business name is the individual's name;
  • The entity is a registered company and the business name is the company name; and
  • The entity is a partnership and the business name consists of all the partner's names.

5. Businesses shall be allowed to suppress certain details in specific circumstances, such as protecting an individual's safety.


Conclusion:

It is vitally important for businesses to be aware of the changes that are taking place. If a business wants to ensure their rights are protected with regard to one of their most important assets, their business name, then they must comply with the new legislation. If you want to know more about the National Register, speak to one of our Legal Specialists today!

Alex Rybak | Solicitor

Download (PDF) For more information, contact us:
Level 7, 9 Hunter Street Sydney NSW 2000
T: 02 9222 8000 F: 02 9222 8008 DX: 707 SYDNEY

click here to read more
Government to get tough on hiring of illegal workers

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen announced the federal government will introduce new laws next year to crack down on the hiring of illegal workers.

"This government is committed to getting tough on dodgy employers and ensuring we have an effective sanctions regime in place to punish those who wilfully exploit foreign workers," Mr Bowen said.

"The new laws will establish civil penalties of up to $50 000 and fines of up to $10 000 for corporate bodies, and civil penalties and fines of up to $10 000 and $2000 respectively for individuals for the employing or referring of illegal workers," he said.

"This clearly addresses the deficiencies in the existing laws, as identified by the Howells Review."

Article - Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited


click here to read more
Retailers and Manufacturers Beware!

From 1 January 2012, new rules will govern the wording of warranties given by suppliers to consumers who purchase goods and services.

Who is affected?

The new rules will apply to any business that sells goods or services to consumers in trade or commerce. Clearly, the rules will cover retail businesses.

What should affected businesses do?

Every affected business should review its warranty documents in advance of 1 January 2012 to ensure warranty documents satisfy the requirements new rules.

Background

There are two types of warranties given to consumers when they purchase goods or services. They are:

  • 1. the consumer guarantees created by the Australian Consumer Law (“ACL”) and which are implied into every consumer contract. These cannot be excluded by businesses; and
  • 2. warranties that goods or services will be defect free for a specified period of time.

Under the new rules, the warranties in category 2 above will be defined as ‘warranties against defects’.

  • There is no legal obligation for a business to give a ‘warranty against defects’ to consumers but if the business does so, it must comply with the new rules.
New Rules

Under the new rules, a “warranty against defects” is “a representation communicated to a consumer in connection with the supply of goods or services at or about the time of supply to the effect that a person will (unconditionally or on specified conditions):

  •   (a) repair or replace the goods or part of them; or
  •   (b) provide again or rectify the services or part of them; or
  •   (c) wholly or partly recompense the consumer;

if the goods or services or part of them are defective, and includes any document by which such a representation is evidenced.”

In the above definition, it is important to note that:

  •   (i) a warranty need not be in writing. It merely needs to be a ‘representation’. The risk is that retail staff could make inadvertent statements to customers during discussions about a product which could be relied upon as a warranty;
  •   (ii) a warranty need not be given to a consumer on the date of sale of a good or service. It can be constituted by a representation communicated at or about the time of supply; and
  •   (iii) a warranty no longer needs to be contained in a formal warranty document. Any written material could be a warranty. This could include wording on packaging or on a label on an item.

New Warranty Wording

Under the new rules, all warranties against defects must:

  •   (a) be contained in a document that is easy to read, clear and legible;
  •   (b) concisely state:   (i) what the business giving the warranty will do so that the warranty is honoured; and
  •   (ii) what the consumer must do to in order to claim the warranty.   (c) prominently state the supplier’s name, address, telephone number and email address (if any);
  •   (d) state the period in which a defect must appear if the consumer is entitled to claim the warranty;   (e) clearly set out the procedure for a warranty claim, including the address to which a claim should be sent;
  •   (f) state who will pay the cost of claiming the warranty and, if it is the business, the procedure under which the consumer can claim the cost;
  •   (g) state that the benefits to the consumer under the warranty against defects are in addition to other rights of the consumer; and
  •   (h) include word for word the following mandatory text:

"Our goods come with guarantees that cannot be excluded under the Australian Consumer Law. You are entitled to a replacement or refund for a major failure and for compensation for any other reasonably foreseeable loss or damage. You are also entitled to have the goods repaired or replaced if the goods fail to be of acceptable quality and the failure does not amount to a major failure"

Relationship between Warranties and Consumer Guarantees

Warranties against defects are additional to the implied consumer guarantees under the ACL. In some cases, the consumer guarantees may provide a remedy after the claim period for a warranty against defects period has expired.

Penalties for failure to comply

Failure to comply with the new warranty rules can result in a fine of up to $50,000 for a corporation and $10,000 for an individual. A breach of the consumer guarantees can result in a fine of up to $1.1million for a corporation and $220,000 for an individual.

What you should do:

Warranty Documents: Retail businesses and manufacturers should review their warranty terms and conditions prior to 1 January 2012 to ensure that all warranty documentation complies with the requirements of the new rules.


Staff Training: Retail staff will need to be educated about the new rules to ensure compliance with the rules and to avoid making inadvertent warranty representations to consumers.
The Commercial Team at Diamond Conway can review your warranty documentation and advise you on what changes
need to be made to ensure that your business is compliant with the new rules. Please contact Phillip Meisner or Michael Tzirtzilakis of the Commercial Team.

Michael Tzirtzilakis | Senior Associate

Download (PDF) For more information, contact us:
Level 7, 9 Hunter Street Sydney NSW 2000
T: 02 9222 8000 F: 02 9222 8008 DX: 707 SYDNEY

click here to read more
Retention of Title

Radical Changes on the Horizon

Does your business have a ‘retention of title’ clause in its trading terms?

The days when a supplier could invoke a retention of title clause in an attempt the recover unpaid goods from a company in liquidation will soon be over.

In early 2012, the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (the “Act”) will activate a new Personal Property Securities Register (the “PPSR”). The rationale underlying the Act and the PPSR was the perceived need for the unification of a number of disparate State and Commonwealth securities registers (among them the ASIC Register of Charges and the Register of Encumbered Vehicles (REVs)) into a single, national register. The reasoning behind the reforms appears logical – having one national securities register is conducive to efficiency and should generate cost savings for business.

However, under this new system the fundamental, intuitive and well recognised concept of title to goods is, What matters under the new regime is whether or not a ‘security interest’ (as defined by the Act) is created by the substance of a transaction between the parties, not necessarily by documents which record that transaction. If a ‘security interest’ is deemed to be created, it must be registered on the PPSR. If the ‘security interest’ is not registered and one party is bankrupt or wound-up, the trustee in bankruptcy or the liquidator can deal with the property which is the subject of the security interest and disregard the actual owner.

Retention of Title Clauses

There are a number of ‘security interests’ which are required to be registered. Critically, the supply of goods on credit pursuant to a retention of title clause is classified as a ‘security interest’ which must be registered on the PPSR.

What should affected businesses do?

New Trade Accounts

Your terms of trade must be amended to include a reference to the fact that the retention of title constitutes a ‘security interest’ pursuant to the Act, together with a clause under which the recipient of goods irrevocably agrees to assist with the prompt registration of the security interest, including an undertaking to sign all PPSR registration forms and acknowledgements. Make it clear in your terms that the customer agrees that you will take a security interest over all goods being sold.

Existing Trade Accounts

Where possible, new terms of trade which deal with the PPSR (as above) should be submitted to your customers. The intention is for these terms of trade to replace the existing terms of trade.

Systems and Procedures

Establish a register of ‘security interests’ held by your business. This should include a folder containing copies of PPSR registrations. This will ensure that once your business is notified that a liquidator has been appointed to a trade customer, you can quickly and efficiently forward a copy of your security registration to the liquidator, thereby protecting your goods from being sold and the proceeds distributed amongst creditors.

Staff and Training

Educate credit managers about the PPSR and the concept of ‘security interests’, registration procedures and registration deadlines to ensure that all eligible ‘security interests’ are validly registered.

What happens if you don’t register?

If your customer goes into insolvency and your retention of title is not registered as a security interest, you will lose the right to recover your unpaid goods from a liquidator because the Act will gives priority to other competing parties who have registered their security interests.

What you can do to protect your business?

If you have a concern that your commercial trading terms may not be compliant with the requirements of the PPSR, contact Phillip Meisner or Michael Tzirtzilakis from the Commercial Team at Diamond Conway who can assist you by reviewing of your documentation and advising you on what needs to be done to ensure that your security interests are properly documented and registered.



Michael Tzirtzilakis | Senior Associate

Download (PDF) For more information, contact us:
Level 7, 9 Hunter Street Sydney NSW 2000
T: 02 9222 8000 F: 02 9222 8008 DX: 707 SYDNEY

click here to read more
A New Source of Director Liability

"In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, an often overlooked section of the Corporations Act (the “Act”) was invoked by a plaintiff to make a director personally liable for the indebtedness of a company. The case is extraordinary because, by invoking section 1324 of the Act, creditors and shareholders - people to whom company directors owe no legal  duties - now appear to be able to seek and obtain an order for damages against  a company director".

Under section 1324 of the Act a court can, where a director  has contravened (or is about to contravene) the Act, and on the application of a  person affected by the conduct of a director, either:

  • grant an injunction to prevent a director from contravening the Act; and/or
  • order a director to pay damages to any other person.

Former rugby league player Jarrod McCracken was a director of a property development company. His company was a defendant in litigation involving the alleged breach of a development contract. The plaintiff in those proceedings succeeded in obtaining an award of $1.5 million damages plus interest against McCracken. In McCracken's case, the Court invoked section 1324 and ordered him personally to pay damages to the plaintiff (a creditor of his company) for a breach of directors duties owed to his company.

Prior to this decision, it was considered ‘settled law’ that company directors did not owe any duties to creditors of companies. Even in cases where directors are held personally liable for the insolvent trading of their company, such proceedings are usually initiated and maintained by a liquidator. Unsecured creditors have not had any legal interest in the company's assets and they did not have a right to bring proceedings against directors for their management of the company. The Court's use of section 1324 creates considerable uncertainty about these established principles.

The decision also has ramifications for another class of people previously thought not to be owed any duties by company directors – shareholders. Shareholders have not traditionally been able to recover damages directly from directors for breaches of duties owed to companies. This principle also now seems to be uncertain. An appeal of the McCracken decision has been lodged. If the original judgment stands, the ramifications for companies extend beyond the legal liabilities of directors because directors who suffer an judgment to pay damages to company creditors, shareholders or other third parties for a breach of statutory directors’ duties may not be covered by their Directors & Officers insurance policy: section 199B of the Act makes it illegal for companies to pay Directors & Officers insurance premiums to cover liabilities arising from, amongst other things, wilful breaches of duty owed by a director to the company. Invariably, all Directors & Officers insurance policies exclude such liabilities.



Michael Tzirtzilakis | Senior Associate

Download (PDF) For more information, contact us:
Level 7, 9 Hunter Street Sydney NSW 2000
T: 02 9222 8000 F: 02 9222 8008 DX: 707 SYDNEY


click here to read more

CALL US 02 9222 8000 REQUEST AN APPOINTMENT SEND AN ENQUIRY SEND TO A FRIEND
DC LAW NEWS ALERTS
457 Laws Get Tough!
On 27 June 2013 the Government’s proposed changes to the subclass 457 visa program set out in the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visa) Bill 2013 passed through the Senate. The Bill is currently awaiting royal assent and it is likely that the changes will take effect as a matter of priority.
read more
Nomination Requirements and the Significant Investor Visa
The Significant Investor Visa arrangements require that applicants for the provisional 188 and subsequent 888 permanent residence visas have state nomination in place.
read more
The 5 Million Dollar Visa!
Got a Spare 5 Million? Buy your way into Australia Today! On 24 November the Minister for Immigration & Citizenship rolled out the Significant Investor Provisional-to-Permanent Visa arrangements under the new Business Innovation and Investor Stream.
read more
The National Business Name Register
Has your business registered its business name? ASIC is making life easier by cutting the red tape…
read more
Government to get tough on hiring of illegal workers
Immigration Minister Chris Bowen announced the federal government will introduce new laws next year to crack down on the hiring of illegal workers.
read more
Retailers and Manufacturers Beware!
New Warranty Rules Apply from 1 January 2012 - From 1 January 2012, new rules will govern the wording of warranties given by suppliers to consumers who purchase goods and services...
read more
Retention of Title
Radical Changes on the Horizon - Does your business have a ‘retention of title’ clause in its trading terms? The days when a supplier could invoke a retention of title clause in an ...
read more
A New Source of Director Liability
In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, an often overlooked section of the Corporations Act (the “Act”) was invoked by a plaintiff to make a...
read more

Click here to view all DC News

SUBSCRIBE TO DC NEWS PRINT THIS PAGE