What is a financial assistance?
The general rule contained in section 260A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) is that a company may financially assist a person to acquire shares (or units) in the entity if the giving of assistance does not materially prejudice:
- the interests of the company or its shareholders;
- or the company’s ability to pay its creditors.
If a transaction is determined to be financial assistance, then shareholder approval and the requirements of section 260B must be complied with.
What is a financial assistance whitewash?
Put simply a financial assistance whitewash is a procedure involving shareholder approval by a company passing a special resolution at a general meeting of its members, with no votes being cast in favour of the resolution by the person acquiring the shares or any associates.
If after the completion of the transaction, the Company has an ultimate holding company, then the financial assistance must be approved by a special resolution passed at a general meeting of the ultimate holding company.
Section 260B(4) of the Act contains the requirements for information to accompany the notice of meetings and section 260B(5) contains the requirements as they relate to the documents to be sent to the Australian and Investments Commission (ASIC) before the notice of meeting is sent out.
Consequences of failing to comply
If a company provides financial assistance and fails to comply with section 260A of the Act the validity of the transaction is not affected and the company is not guilty of an offence. That said, any person who is involved in the company’s contravention contravenes section 260A which is a civil penalty provision.
Further information
If you need assistance in complying with your compliance obligations and require a financial assistance whitewash, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
Related insights about corporate law
-
WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context
The recent case of WIJOAV Services Pty Ltd v Goldstone Private Equity Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 622 (WIJOAV v Goldstone) involved a claim of shareholder oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act). The case established that a shareholder in a private equity fund may be oppressed by a co-investor where…
-
Federal Court dismisses continuous disclosure claim
The Federal Court recently dismissed Australia Securities and Investment Commission’s (ASIC) claim in Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Nuix Limited [2026] FCA 490 (ASIC v Nuix) that Nuix Limited breached its obligations under section 674 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act). Nuix Limited (Nuix) successfully contested ASIC’s allegation that it had breached…
-
Does your start-up meet the ESIC tax-offset criteria?
Federal government introduced the Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Act 2016 (Cth) to provide tax incentives for investors in an eligible early stage innovation company (ESIC), including 20% up-front non-refundable tax offset and capital gains tax (CGT) exemption for all types of investors meeting criteria.
-
Valuing ESS Interests
A company, whether listed or unlisted, can grant its employees an interest in its equity (ESS Interest), including through an employee share scheme (ESS) or employee share option plan (ESOP). There are restrictions contained in both the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) and Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (ITAA) that determine the price…
-
ESS vs ESOP – what’s the difference?
Employee share schemes (ESS) and employee share option plans (ESOP) are commonly used by corporations to incentivise employees and align performance with company growth by providing them with an interest in the company. While the terms are often used interchangeably, they have distinct legal and structural differences under Australian law. This article explains the key…
-
Disputed ESOP – Selak v National Tiles Co Pty Ltd
In the case of Selak v National Tiles, the Vic Supreme Court considered whether a company breached an option agreement governed by the terms of an Employee Share Option Plan (ESOP) by requiring an option holder to execute an undisclosed shareholders’ agreement as a condition of exercising vested options.
-
Can a unit trust be wound up by the oppression remedies
The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corps Act) grants the Courts the power to award remedies under section 233, specifically designed to address situations of oppression within corporate entities under section 232. These remedies, also known as the “Oppression Remedies”, aim to resolve situations where a company’s conduct unfairly prejudices its members or shareholders. While primarily…
-
Directors’ obligations to comply with Accounting Standards
Directors are personally liable for ensuring their company operates in accordance with corporate governance and accounting standards. Obligations contained in part 2M.2 and 2M.3 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) outline obligations for companies to keep financial records and prepare annual financial and director’s reports. Sections 180 and 344 of the Corporations Act…
-
Accounting standards matter: the company’s obligation
Australian accounting standards (Accounting Standards) are often considered solely the domain of auditors and accountants. However, they are a crucial aspect of corporate law and governance in Australia. For directors, officers, and their professional advisers, the key issue is not the technical details of the Accounting Standards, but rather their legal enforceability. A failure to…
