hi everybody (and yes, i have all the academic credentials of dr...

hi everybody (and yes, i have all the academic credentials of dr nick riviera)

one part that has come up a number times in chat sites about brisconnections is the whole "it will be a voidable transaction if you transfer your shares to an entity you know cannot meet the future liability", where posters have warned holders about the danger of shunting their units into a $2 company or SMSF or to a homeless person (and i agree, IMO it is very risky and likely to be undone by a court).

the thing i haven't heard anyone raise is wouldn't this same precept apply to ASX/brisconnections company/commsec/sellers of the units? could not someone like fang he use this same law to say "you should not have sold these to me as i am a suburban individual without a chance to meet $xx million liability in apr09 and apr10", and seek to have the transaction voided?

or is the deal that a private (off market, one-on-one) transaction has a higher duty of care to it than anonymous market trades? could a legal defence against the debt collectors that will come a-knockin in apr09 be that since ASX/brisconnections/underwriters created the market for BCSCA then it was THEIR duty of care to ensure that nobody could purchase any more units than they reasonably could pay the liability on? none of this "hey i did not KNOW about liability as it was not on the commsec site until the order went thru and i got contract note" that new holders of big parcels are saying, just simply that ASX/whomever should not have permitted someone with $100k of assets right now to accumulate $millions of very current liabilities- that they should have denied such a purchase.

just thinking that the duty-of-care argument that prevents current holders offloading their units this way may also be the way to have their purchase of these units voided.