The Australian Treasury has today, 4 August 2015, released a consultation paper providing the first details of the impending legislative framework for crowd-sourced equity funding (CSEF) for public companies. The introduction of a legislative framework for CSEF’s is part of the 2015-16 federal budget package.
The consultation paper outlines some of the key provisions that will apply to companies participating in CSEF’s, these include:
- the availability of CSEF is restricted to Australian public companies that qualify as small enterprises who are yet to raise funds through a previous public offer;
- a number of exemptions from certain public company compliance costs for newly registered or converted public companies;
- a maximum of five (5) million dollars in a twelve (12) month period can be raised through CSEF;
- a limit of one class of fully paid ordinary shares per round of CSEF with equal price, terms and conditions; and
- a tailored disclosure package that applies specifically to CSEF.
Further details will be forthcoming in the draft legislation to be released later in the year. Presently the Australian Treasury is inviting comments from interested stakeholders until 31 August 2015. It is anticipated that the legislation will be introduced to Parliament in the Spring sittings.
Further information
If you need advice on your rights and obligations in light of the proposed crowd funding laws, 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
-
Director identification numbers now a reality
The Federal Government has passed a law requiring all directors to obtain a Director Identification Number (DIN). Learn more about the implications of this law, including the potential penalties for non-compliance.
-
Shareholder oppression – a taxonomy of corporate wrongs
This article examines the concept of shareholder oppression and provides examples of when the Court has found oppressive conduct, as well as when it has not. It also outlines the remedies the Court prefers when faced with oppressive conduct.
-
Are fiduciary duties owed by former company directors?
A former director’s duties and responsibilities to their previous company may not end with their resignation. Find out how the Advanced Fuels Technology Pty Ltd v Blythe & Ors [2018] VSC 286 case explored this concept and what the Court had to say.
-
The legal requirements of crowdfunding in business
Mareva Orders are a tool to protect the proper administration of justice and prevent an abuse of Court processes. The Court can restrain a defendant from disposing of their assets, ensuring the plaintiff has an effective remedy.
-
Director resignations – effects from 18 February 2021
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Act 2020 (Phoenixing Act) introduced major changes to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act), with implications for directors. Learn more about the timeline for director resignations and the potential liabilities of directors under the new law.
-
Shareholder oppression – the early warning signs
This article explores the legal framework of shareholder oppression and identifies early warning signs to look out for when starting a new venture, such as entity type, relationship with advisors, exclusion from management, access to info and non-flexible negotiation.
-
Understanding deal fatigue in business transactions
Learn how to reduce deal fatigue in commercial transactions. Tips include increasing bargaining position, introducing lawyers and planning the deal. Get advice to help you make the most of your next commercial transaction.
-
Ending an indefinite contract
Terminating an Indefinite Contract can be complex. This article examines the issues of reasonable notice, compensation, commission, and case studies to help answer common questions.
-
Just and equitable winding up – shareholder oppression
Discontinuing proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia can be costly, as the default position is that the discontinuing party pays the other party’s costs. However, the Court has discretion to award costs and may consider the parties’ conduct and reasons for discontinuance.
