what dibble said

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.