Invoices from State Business Name registries for renewal of business names that expire before 28 May should be paid to the State offices.

You can view a webcast of an ASIC seminar on the new register (about 1 hour) here.

ASIC’s FAQ page has helpful information.

TM Check is a simplified search for trade marks that have been applied for or registered with IP Australia. It is intended to provide the user with an indication only – It is not a substitute for the comprehensive ATMOSS database search.

It will implement measures under the Corporations Amendment (Phoenixing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 that was passed by Parliament on 9 May 2012. (Background)

The draft Regulations contain the new requirements to lodge insolvency and deregistration notices with ASIC for publication on a new ASIC Insolvency Notices website.

The closing date for submissions is 1 June 2012.

The website will provide a single point for searching notices and will replace the current requirement to publish insolvency-related notices in state or territory newspapers or in the ASIC Gazette from 1 July 2012.

Our February seminars were well received. In response to feedback we will add an extra interactive session in addition to our case study.

These seminars for AFS and ACL licencees cover current hot topics and a general update on things you must get right.

Topics are selected for their relevance for Responsible Managers: the August seminars will specifically discuss preparing for an ASIC Compliance audit.

It is a practical guide to the most recent changes and topical issues affecting financial services and credit licensees, including latest cases, legislation, regulatory developments and other tips on how to prove compliance.

Key Information

* Cost: $385 (incl GST) per person
* CPD points: 3 points
* Time: 9am – 12:30 noon (registration 8:30am)
* Location: Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne Adelaide
* Designed for: Responsible Managers who wish to stay up to date with all the relevant finance industry regulatory news

When and where
Brisbane: Tuesday 21 August 2012
Sydney: Wednesday 22 August 2012
Melbourne: Tuesday 28 August 2012
Adelaide: Wednesday 29 August 2012

Register your interest
Brisbane
Sydney
Melbourne
Adelaide

The response is in 2 parts: Exposure Drafts of Australian Privacy Amendment Legislation: Part 1 – Australian Privacy Principles and Exposure Drafts of Australian Privacy Amendment Legislation: Part 2 – Credit Reporting. (Background: here, exposure draft legislation)

In respect of the Committee’s twenty nine recommendations on the Australian Privacy Principles, 4 have been accepted in full, 14 have been accepted in principle, 1 has been accepted in part, 6 have been supported and 4 have been rejected in full.

In respect of the Committee’s thirty recommendations on credit reporting, 20 have been accepted in full, seven have been accepted in principle and three have been noted.

The Attorney General recently indicated that legislation would be introduced in the Winter Sittings of Parliament.

In respect of credit reporting, credit reporting information will include the following categories of personal information, in addition to those currently permitted in credit information files under the Privacy Act:
(a) the type of each credit account opened (for example, mortgage, personal loan, credit card);
(b) the date on which each credit account was opened;
(c) the current limit of each open credit account; and
(d) the date on which each credit account was closed.

Amongst other things, the changes will allow the Privacy Commissioner to:

• Accept a written undertaking from an organisation that they will take or refrain from a specified action. This will be enforceable in the Federal Court or Federal Magistrates Court.
• Make a determination following an investigation conducted on the Commissioner’s own initiative. Currently, the Act only allows a determination to be made when investigating a complaint from an individual about an act of practice.
• Seek civil penalties in the case of serious or repeated interferences with privacy.
• Conduct performance assessments of private sector organisations handling personal information. Currently the Commissioner can only conduct audits of government agencies and credit reporting agencies.

The new provisions will initially apply only to the banking sector, and only in relation to the taking of deposits and making advances or loans.

It will be unlawful for an ADI to disclose prices to competitors – in private – where doing so is not in the ordinary course of business.

As to what is permitted in the ordinary course of business, Mr Sims said: “we think that an objective observer would regard the covert sharing of prospective pricing information – between competitors – as not in the ordinary course of business.”

He went on to say:

But what sort of communication would raise concerns under the prohibition on disclosures for the purpose of substantially lessening competition?

A great deal would depend on the purpose of the disclosure, or the reason for making it.

If it’s in order to facilitate coordinated conduct, that’s exactly what the law is intended to stop.

Here’s an example: a bank might make a public statement that its funding costs have risen.

And indeed, that statement might be in order to lay the groundwork – with its customers and shareholders – for an eventual rate rise.

But we think that statements that genuinely describe market reality are unlikely to raise concerns of anti-competitive conduct.

But our attention would be attracted where, say, a bank offers its support for a change in pricing strategy, effectively tipping that strategy to competitors and
testing how they might respond, without committing itself to action.

Further, of course, we would be concerned if, say, an Australian banking executive announced that he or she would be reluctant to lift rates beyond that of the Reserve Bank cash rate or introduce new fees, but they would follow if other banks did so.

I expect the banks will do everything they can to comply with these new laws.

They have strong systems and cultures that support strict compliance with the law.

The ACCC will of course take action if we see unlawful conduct.

Note that there are exceptions for disclosures between parties in a joint venture, between merger parties, as part of a corporate work-out, those authorised by
law, and those in compliance with the continuous disclosure requirements in the Corporations Act.

In addition to the exceptions, it will be possible to lodge an application for authorisation, and in some cases a notification, with the ACCC to obtain protection against legal action for proposed disclosures where those are likely to be in the public interest.

This will speed up a decision on the characterisation of fees as a penalty.

Apart from ANZ Bank, class actions have also been issued against Citibank, Commonwealth Bank, NAB, Westpac, St George, BankSA and BankWest.

The four other banks against which proceedings are proposed to be issued are Bank of Queensland, Bendigo Bank, HSBC, and Suncorp.

It is important that disputes that are referred to FOS or COSL be dealt with properly at an early stage to avoid drawn out proceedings.

Langes offers assistance in 2 key areas, firstly drafting a comprehensive response by credit providers to borrowers’ claims and secondly in representing credit providers at conciliation conferences.

Contact Shannon Adams.

In the largest settlement to date in any Australian class action a total settlement amount in respect of all proceedings of $200 million will be allocated between the 2 groups of claimants. The balance of the total settlement amount will be comprised of:
· $85 million from Centro Retail Australia:
· $67 million from PwC;
· $10 million from CNPR; and
· $38 million from available insurance proceeds.

The proceedings focussed on the disclosure of liabilities in the Centro Group’s audited accounts for FY07. These proceedings were commenced on behalf of shareholders who acquired securities in CNP and CER in 2007 and early 2008.

At the relevant time, PWC was the auditor for CNP and CER.

The settlement of the proceedings is subject to approval of the Federal Court on 19 June 2012.

Background

The principal object is to amend the Corporations Act 2001 to give ASIC the power to place a company into liquidation in order to remove current impediments to workers accessing their entitlements under the General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme (GEERS).

The present position is that the employees of an abandoned company must apply to the courts to have the company wound up under the Corporations Act before they can access GEERS. If ASIC has already deregistered the abandoned company, ASIC or the company’s employees must apply to the courts to have the company re-registered before it can be wound up.

To enable employees to access their entitlements under GEERS when the directors of a company simply abandon it, the Bill empowers ASIC to wind up the company without first going through either of these processes.

The Bill empowers ASIC to order the winding up of a company in four separate sets of circumstances: where the company otherwise meets the requirements for ASIC-initiated deregistration of the company; if the company’s review fee in respect of a review date has not been paid in full at least 12 months after the date for payment; where ASIC has reinstated the registration of a company and has reason to believe that the winding up of the company would be in the public interest; and where ASIC has reason to believe that the company is no longer carrying on business, and the company or its directors do not object to a notice from ASIC informing them of the proposed winding up of the company.

Before making a winding up order, ASIC must give notice of its intention to make the order on the ASIC database, and publish notice of its intention, in the manner prescribed.