References of Act 52 of Tpa
http://global.factiva.com.ezproxy-m.deakin.edu.au/ha/default.aspx
News - Legal Affairs
Lehman judge damns new laws
Hannah Low
570 words
28 September 2012
The Australian Financial Review
AFNR
First
36
English
Copyright 2012. Fairfax Media Management Pty Limited.
A Federal Court judge has slammed the new legislative regime governing misleading and deceptive conduct, calling the framework "pointlessly technical and befuddling".
When Justice Steven Rares handed down his lengthy decision on the liability of failed investment bank Lehman Brothers Australia last Friday, he took the opportunity to make clear what he thought of the new laws prohibiting misleading and deceptive conduct.
Justice Rares found the Australian arm of the failed Wall Street giant had misled investors in breach of fiduciary duties, and said what naive local councils were told about thecomplex financial products they invested in was wrong.
Among the successful claimants against Lehman were council representatives, Montrose Access chief executive Darrel Bourke, Parkes Shire Council corporate services director Les Finn and City of Swan executive manager corporate services Colin Cameron.
The Lehman case was the first time internationally a court had ruled on the duties of banks when compiling and selling structured debt products called collateralised debt obligations.
Justice Rares was no doubt aware of the interest in the case.
The lengthy reasons were accompanied by a short summary, which the judge read in court.
It was in this summary that he said the forerunner of Lehman, Grange, had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct "contrary to what is now a plethora of pointlessly technical and befuddling statutory provisions scattered over many acts in defined situations".
He did not stop there, adding: "The repealed, simple and comprehensive section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) that prohibited corporations engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or
News - Legal Affairs
Lehman judge damns new laws
Hannah Low
570 words
28 September 2012
The Australian Financial Review
AFNR
First
36
English
Copyright 2012. Fairfax Media Management Pty Limited.
A Federal Court judge has slammed the new legislative regime governing misleading and deceptive conduct, calling the framework "pointlessly technical and befuddling".
When Justice Steven Rares handed down his lengthy decision on the liability of failed investment bank Lehman Brothers Australia last Friday, he took the opportunity to make clear what he thought of the new laws prohibiting misleading and deceptive conduct.
Justice Rares found the Australian arm of the failed Wall Street giant had misled investors in breach of fiduciary duties, and said what naive local councils were told about thecomplex financial products they invested in was wrong.
Among the successful claimants against Lehman were council representatives, Montrose Access chief executive Darrel Bourke, Parkes Shire Council corporate services director Les Finn and City of Swan executive manager corporate services Colin Cameron.
The Lehman case was the first time internationally a court had ruled on the duties of banks when compiling and selling structured debt products called collateralised debt obligations.
Justice Rares was no doubt aware of the interest in the case.
The lengthy reasons were accompanied by a short summary, which the judge read in court.
It was in this summary that he said the forerunner of Lehman, Grange, had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct "contrary to what is now a plethora of pointlessly technical and befuddling statutory provisions scattered over many acts in defined situations".
He did not stop there, adding: "The repealed, simple and comprehensive section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) that prohibited corporations engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or