← All Authorities
Australia corporate capacity and ultra viresgrounds illegality

ASIC v Maxwell

(2006) 59 ACSR 373
JurisdictionAustralia
CourtSupreme Court of New South Wales
Year2006
StatusBinding authority

Summary

A Ponzi scheme operated as an unregistered managed investment scheme contrary to s.601ED of the Corporations Act, justifying ASIC enforcement action.

Key Principle

Managed investment schemes; s.601ED Corporations Act; Ponzi scheme as unregistered managed investment scheme; ASIC enforcement

Area of Law

company

Related Cases

Shafron v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2012) 247 CLR 465

A company secretary is an 'officer' under the Corporations Act and owes a duty of care and diligence under s 180 in performing their functions.

Bell Group Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation [2012] WASCA 157

Directors of an insolvent company owe duties to creditors, and bank claims may be subordinated where unconscionable conduct is established in dealings with the insolvent company.

Barclay v Penberthy (2012) 246 CLR 258

The standard of care under s 180 of the Corporations Act is that of a reasonable person in the director's position, having regard to the corporation's circumstances and the director's office.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of ASIC v Maxwell and how it applies to your situation.

Explain ASIC v Maxwell