Reasons behind Lance Rosenberg’s Ban Overturn
The AAT or Administrative Appeals Tribunal overturned the order of banning which was imposed to Mr. Lance Rosenberg (Director of Tricom Equities Limited) by ASIC from providing financial services for 4 years. Though the decision process is still there for review, there are interesting comments which actually were made.
The conduct giving actually caused towards the banning order that’s related with the actions of Mr. Rosenberg with regards to the securities which Tricom and was held by it as a security for loans had an on-lent to Opes Prime. Opes Prime also had administrators that were appointed back in March 27, 2008. Through having an on-lent securities to Opes Prime and to become concerned with the ability of Tricom to recover the securities, Rosenberg then spent days after March 27, 2008 so they could get advice from corporate advisers as well as from the insolvency securities about the best options with how to recover it.
Before putting in place the special crossing, Rosenberg had a continued communication with the ASX with regards to the position. When he was actually in that special crossing, Rosenberg implemented a negotiation with the lenders and settled the crossing before it was actually due for them in financing the acquisition on securities as well as to cancel the special crossing.
The AAT likewise considered on various expert evidence and that the ASX Listing Rules with where they relate on the off market transactions like special crossing as well as the information which was made available for the investors with regards to such kind of transactions.
The AAT likewise sees such special crossing as off market transactions to where the transactions having specific ASX were being transacted off market through a special crossing price and comes with no related on the market price for security.
This in fact is where the AAT had came on the conclusion that the evidence be provided by the ASIC didn’t make it out that the relevant sections of Corporations ACT had been contravened. As an addition on the question of evidence about the certain contraventions, the context in making the banning order was later on considered.
The AAT then considered that the banning order should be discretionary and should never be required of being imposed by the ASIC. The primary purpose of the banning order would be to provide protection to the public and to act also as a deterrent to the person who is concerned and other participants who are in the market.
The case have to provide comfort to directors that while an ASIC delegate consider the action that’s taken under time pressure in a difficult time is actually in breach with the law. The AAT also considers much broader set of circumstances in various options to a director that also includes those available for Mr. Rosenberg to seek recovery from the securities and off market transactions was also unlikely to prejudice the investing public.