BHP wants to appeal a decision giving a class action the OK to fix what a judge accepted was an “inadvertent mistake” that resulted in a ruling — itself the subject of an appeal — which limited the group member definition.
Challenging a ruling that it breached its continuous disclosure obligations, ANZ has argued on appeal that it did not need to inform the ASX of a bailout by the underwriters of a 2015 institutional share placement because the information didn’t go to the fundamental value of its shares.
A five-year-old class action against BHP over the collapse of a Brazilian dam is seeking to amend the group definition following a judgment limiting the class size, but the mining company says it should not be punished for the applicant’s pleading mistake.
Telecommunications giant SingTel has lost its challenge a ruling in favour of the ATO’s decision to reject over $894,000 in tax deductions related to its $14.2 billion acquisition of Optus.
A Melbourne orthopaedic clinic has lost its bid to register the name ‘Melbourne Bone and Joint Clinic’ as a trade mark, with a judge finding the phrase was just an ordinary combination of words.
US drink giant PepsiCo has lodged an appeal of a court win for the Australian Taxation Office over payments made by Schweppes under a distribution agreement that were found to be subject to royalty withholding tax.
Honda Australia has been hit with a $6 million penalty for misleading communications made to customers of three dealerships during a restructuring in which the car maker’s shuttered its independent dealer network in favour of an agency model.
ANZ will appeal a ruling that it breached its continuous disclosure obligations when it failed to inform the ASX of a bailout by the underwriters of a 2015 institutional share placement.
ANZ’s failure to disclose a bailout by banks underwriting a $2.5 billion share placement has resulted in a penalty of less than $1 million, ending an eight-year saga that included an aborted criminal trial.
In a victory for the ATO, a judge has found that payments made by Schweppes to PepsiCo as part of a bottling and distribution agreement, which did not expressly provide for payment of a royalty for use of the company’s IP, were royalties and should be taxed accordingly.