case_outcome: cited

case_text: this respect, the ground has 'a proper role to serve as an instrument of investor protection' ASC v A S Nominees at 531 and one expression of that protection is whether the affairs of the company can be carried on 'consistently with candid and straightforward dealing with the public, from whom further capital must be obtained if its existence is to be prolonged' ( Re Producers' Real Estate & Finance Co Ltd (1936) VLR 235 at 246 per Mann CJ). Another is whether creditors or members can continue to have confidence in the conduct of the affairs of the company ( Re Chemical Plastics Ltd [1951] VLR 136 at 142 per Hudson A-J; ASC v A S Nominees Ltd at 531). Where the order is sought by a Regulator such as ASIC in vindication of the public interest, the Court must itself evaluate the factual matrix in order to form a view as to whether 'a sufficient reason' for making the order is demonstrated ( Re Walter L Jacob & Co Ltd (1988) 5 BCC 244 at 251). In other words, what is the quality of the conduct or the burden of the misconduct. Accordingly, I have examined in some considerable detail the background circumstances concerning the subscription of the JFCP funds and their use; the events surrounding the prohibition by the Board upon the issue of any further promissory notes and the circumstances which led Alfred Wong and Andris Lielkajis to arrange for presentations of the GPEL product at various seminars by Lielkajis. I have found that the conduct in relation to those matters is misconduct for all the reasons indicated previously. I will not repeat them here. However, the assessment of that conduct and the conclusions I have reached concerning it reflects a lack of confidence in Alfred Wong and the directors in the conduct and management of GPEL and GPEC.


case_text: fact, the Board was deprived of any deliberative process on these questions as Alfred Wong caused the monies to be paid to a company he controlled in order to accommodate demands which were then made, in effect, beneficially upon him, by reason of claims made upon Richland as trustee of a trust the beneficiary of which was Alfred Wong. The conduct of causing JFCP to subscribe for capital in the company on the assumption previously described and then immediately use that money to discharge debts contended by Alfred Wong to be payable to a company related to him was both improper and misleading of JFCP. Such conduct is the expression of the character of the misconduct as Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Aust Timber Pty Ltd (1999) 17 ACLC 893 per Merkel J, demonstrates.


case_text: the usual applicant for an order on such a ground is a contributory , it is clear that ASIC has standing to apply for an order on the just and equitable ground in the pursuit of public interest and the Court will examine those public interest considerations to determine where the actual public interest lies ( Australian Securities Commission v A S Nominees Limited ( ASC v A S Nominees ) (1995 1996) 62 FCR 504 at 531C, per Finn J). See also Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Pegasus Leveraged Options Group Pty Ltd 41 ACSR 561 per Davies AJ at [95]-[97]; Australian Securities & Investments Commission v ABC Fund Managers & Ors 39 ACSR 443 at [116] [129], per Warren J; and Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Chase Capital Management Pty Ltd & Ors 36 ACSR 778 at [75] per Owen J.


case_title: Australian Securities & Investments Commission v ABC Fund Managers & Ors 39 ACSR 443


case_title: Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Chase Capital Management Pty Ltd & Ors 36 ACSR 778