Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

NUH

Click for more information

0.00%

8.1¢ nuheara limited

Defacto's are meaningless in the eyes of the US law, I believe...

First 19 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
BoroBoyinoz

7,522 Posts.

1282

21/07/21

16:22

Post #: 54666515
Share

Originally posted by Teddyward ↑

Good luck and congrats to her in her marriage . Thats out of the way now.

Marriage isn't the only reason to declare the interest .

I'll use the example as I don't care to know circumstances - EG, instead of getting married what if they were defacto for next 10 years - would that require a declaration? I am sure you would say yes?

My assumption is that very few people just get married and these days they generally have a defacto ( spouse) relationship that has same responsibilities in eyes of law and compliance as the defacto becomes "entitled to a benefit" from the relaitionship. Thus has reportable beneficial interest IMO at the point they became defacto.
Even without the official defacto there is obligations and always better to declare interest.

You have ASIC RG73 and also ASX listing rules for reference relating to relevant interests and related parties and reporting

4.The parties caught by Listing Rule 10.1 4.1Listing Rule 10.1.1 – related parties
Listing Rule 10.1.1 applies where the counterparty to an acquisition or disposal of a substantial asset is a related
party. The term “related party” is defined in similar terms under the Listing Rules as it is under the Corporations Act. Where the listed entity is a body corporate, its related parties include:
(i) an entity that controls the listed entity;
(ii) if the listed entity is controlled by an entity that is not a body corporate, the persons making up that entity;
(iii) directors of the listed entity or of an entity that controls the listed entity;
(iv) spouses and de facto spouses of anyone referred to in (ii) and (iii) above;
(v) parents and children of anyone referred to in (ii), (iii) and (iv) above;
(vi) an entity controlled by anyone referred to in (i) – (v) above unless it is also controlled by the listed entity; (vii) anyone who has fallen within (i) – (vi) above within the past 6 months;
(viii) anyone who believes or has reasonable grounds to believe that they are likely to fall within (i) – (vi) at any time in the future; and
(ix) anyone acting in concert with someone referred to in (i) – (viii) above.

1917 See the definition of “dispose” in Listing Rule 19.12. 18 Again, ASX may not take this view if: (a) there is a reasonable gap in time between the original disposal by the entity to the third party
and the subsequent disposal by the third party to the 10.1 party; (b) the third party was clearly a bona fide acquirer for value from the listed
entity and subsequently a bona fide disposer for value to the 10.1 party; and (c) there is no evidence of the parties acting in concert to
achieve that outcome or of any other association between the 10.1 party and the third party. 19 Paragraph (a) of the definition of “related party” in Listing Rule 19.12. This is essentially the same definition as in section 228 of the
Corporations Act

Expand

Defacto's are meaningless in the eyes of the US law, I believe she is a US Citizen.

NUH Price at posting: 4.1¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
1 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

Emerald & Azure score Digger & Dealer awards

ORP

Orpheus delays drilling at South Australian play Frome, on traditional owner advice

Bitcoin: Current State of Play & Where to Next | Swyftx

IR1

IRIS Metals sniffs 75 metres of lithium in South Dakota, pushing share price up 9.99%

LVH

Livehire sees share rocket 91% on takeover bid by Humanforce

There are more pages in this discussion • 5 more messages in this thread...

First 19 Last

Add NUH (ASX) to my watchlist