CORPORATIONS – meaning of debenture in s 9 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – where respondent operated a digital currency exchange through which customers could buy and sell certain cryptocurrencies – where respondent also offered a Finder application (Finder App) on mobile device platforms through which its customers could, amongst other things, access the “Finder Earn” product – where by investing in the Finder Earn product customers could exchange funds in their account to obtain “TrueAUD” stablecoins ownership of which was transferred to the respondent enabling the customer to earn a “return” quantified in TrueAUD which upon expiry of the term was credited to the customer’s Finder Wallet account in AUD – where primary judge held the respondent’s “Finder Earn” product was not a debenture on the basis that there was no money “deposited with or lent to” the respondent or in the alternative that there was no undertaking by the company to repay as a debt that money
Related cases about corporate law
-
Butler v Total Tools Holdings Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1225
CORPORATIONS – shareholders’ resolution authorising board of company to issue an equity-based instrument to non-executive directors upon successful financial close of an initial public offering or trade sale – where plaintiff resigned as non-executive director following failure to complete trade sale originally contemplated – where separate trade sale subsequently completed – where company refused to…
-
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Macrolend Pty Ltd (No 3) [2025] FCA 1158
CORPORATIONS – debenture – whether certain loan and promissory note arrangements were “financial products” by reason of being debentures within the meaning of s 9 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) CORPORATIONS – alleged contraventions of ss 911A(1) and 911A(5B) of the Corporations Act – whether first defendant company and third defendant company carried on…
-
Torc Solutions Pty Ltd v Unex Corporation doing business as Hytorc [2025] FCA 1124
CONTRACTS – formation – where applicant and second respondent were parties to a Distributor Agreement – where closure of the second respondent announced – where applicant and first respondent executed a Branded Product Distribution Agreement – where applicant alleged that applicant and first respondent made an alternative agreement or that such agreement could be inferred…
