Sons of Gwalia and statutory debt subordination: An appraisal of the North American experience

Hargovan, A; Harris, J

Sons of Gwalia and statutory debt subordination: An appraisal of the North American experience

Hargovan, A Harris, J

Permalink

Publisher:: LexisNexis Butterworths
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Hargovan Anil and Harris Jason 2007, 'Sons of Gwalia and statutory debt subordination: An appraisal of the North American experience', LexisNexis Butterworths, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 265-300.
Issue Date:: 2007

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2006010113.pdf		187.47 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Hargovan, A	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Harris, J	en_US
dc.date.accessioned	2010-05-14T07:48:08Z
dc.date.available	2010-05-14T07:48:08Z
dc.date.created	2010-05-14T07:48:08Z	en_US
dc.date.issued	2007
dc.identifier	2006010113	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Hargovan Anil and Harris Jason 2007, 'Sons of Gwalia and statutory debt subordination: An appraisal of the North American experience', LexisNexis Butterworths, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 265-300.	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1037-4124	en_US
dc.identifier.other	C1	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/6563
dc.description.abstract	The judicial uncertainty on the interpretation and reach of s 563A of the Corporations Act, dealing with debt priority issues, has now been resolved by the High Court in the landmark decision Sons of Gwalia Ltd v Margaretic. The High Court has (in certain circumstances) elevated the status of shareholders, with claims for damages caused by defective disclosure practices, to that of ordinary creditors. Uncertainty, however, remains over whether this is a sound policy outcome. Parliamentary intention regarding the appropriate delineation between creditor and investor rights during insolvency remains unclear. Adverse reaction by the commercial community has led to the High Court's decision being examined by the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee. As part of the calls for law reform, in order to clarify the rights of debt and equity investors during insolvency, bankers and commentators have advocated that Australia adopt the US model for statutory debt subordination with its emphasis on a 'shareholders come last' principle during insolvency. The purpose of this article is to examine the policy and legal position of the subordination of shareholder claims during insolvency in the United States and Canada and to gauge what lessons may be learnt from that experience. A critical appraisal of the North American jurisprudence and experience, on the subordination of shareholder claims for damages arising out of misrepresentation inducing the acquisition or retention of shares, may be of assistance in resolving the current difficulties experienced in Australian insolvency law. The authors argue that the US position of blanket subordination should not be adopted in Australia.	en_US
dc.publisher	LexisNexis Butterworths	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Australian Journal of Corporate Law	en_US
dc.title	Sons of Gwalia and statutory debt subordination: An appraisal of the North American experience	en_US
dc.type	Journal article
utslib.citation.volume	20	en_US
utslib.citation.number	3	en_US
utslib.location	Australia	en_US
utslib.citation.startpage	265	en_US
utslib.citation.endpage	300	en_US
utslib.identifier.org	Law	en_US
utslib.for	180106	en_US
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access

Abstract:

The judicial uncertainty on the interpretation and reach of s 563A of the Corporations Act, dealing with debt priority issues, has now been resolved by the High Court in the landmark decision Sons of Gwalia Ltd v Margaretic. The High Court has (in certain circumstances) elevated the status of shareholders, with claims for damages caused by defective disclosure practices, to that of ordinary creditors. Uncertainty, however, remains over whether this is a sound policy outcome. Parliamentary intention regarding the appropriate delineation between creditor and investor rights during insolvency remains unclear. Adverse reaction by the commercial community has led to the High Court's decision being examined by the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee. As part of the calls for law reform, in order to clarify the rights of debt and equity investors during insolvency, bankers and commentators have advocated that Australia adopt the US model for statutory debt subordination with its emphasis on a 'shareholders come last' principle during insolvency. The purpose of this article is to examine the policy and legal position of the subordination of shareholder claims during insolvency in the United States and Canada and to gauge what lessons may be learnt from that experience. A critical appraisal of the North American jurisprudence and experience, on the subordination of shareholder claims for damages arising out of misrepresentation inducing the acquisition or retention of shares, may be of assistance in resolving the current difficulties experienced in Australian insolvency law. The authors argue that the US position of blanket subordination should not be adopted in Australia.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/6563