pay thousands and owe millions, page-12

"I can't say I feel a lot of sympathy for non IPO holders in this."

So you feel more sympathy for someone who had to sign a statement that they accepted the terms of ownership as per the product disclosure statement than for someone who had no such obligation? More fool the person that read the clause outlining the fixed liability of the security and bought them I would think. It seems odd that someone taking part in the ipo has to sign all these declarations, yet to trade them you need only press a few buttons.

And how many fixed liability securities are trading on the asx currently anyway? I've heard of three, all infrastructure projects, and BCS is the only one still trading. I'll have a look for some more.

More on Michinyon's sell to a homeless person idea. Not having traded these my only interest is in seeing holders get out of this trap. As I outlined previously,

"Dibble said:

"I have obtained legal advice on the sale or transfer of BCSCA shares to an empty shell company / an individual with minimal assets, and have been advised that:

1) Regardless of whether or not it is deemed a voidable transaction under s.588FE of the Corporations Act, section 172 prevents the voluntary disposition of property with the intention to defraud creditors."

The problem I have with this is that in the case of BCS, the company makes no stipulation on the ownership or transfer of securities other than the legal right of the purchaser to own them. The fraud in Dibble's advice comes about because the creditor(s) implicitly or explicitly seek assurance that the purchaser is able to satisfy their obligation. So transferring the obligation to an entity without the means to satisfy the obligation is obvioulsy fraudulent. But what happens when the creditor has sought no obligation from the purchaser other than a legal obligation to own the securities? Surely by transferring your securities to another entity you are only seeking the same obligation (i.e. the legal right to own shares) as was sought by the creditor?

A legal opinion regarding this might be worthwile."

The only hassle I can see with this is that in order to complete the off market transfer, the new owner must be placed on the issuer sponsored sub-register. While the company may not be able to legally refuse to place the new owner on the sub-register, they might try to delay doing so.