Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Mining Projects Group Limited (No 2) [2008] FCA 951
AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION v MINING PROJECTS GROUP LIMITED (ACN 006 189 331) (FORMERLY YAMARNA GOLDFIELDS LIMITED), BRYAN JOHN FROST AND RICHARD REVELINS VID 8 OF 2007
GORDON J
24 JANUARY 2008
MELBOURNE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY 8 OF 2007
BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
Applicant
AND: MINING PROJECTS GROUP LIMITED (ACN 006 189 331) (FORMERLY YAMARNA GOLDFIELDS LIMITED)
First Respondent
BRYAN JOHN FROST
Second Respondent
RICHARD REVELINS
Third Respondent
JUDGE: GORDON J DATE OF ORDER: 24 JANUARY 2008
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application is dismissed. 2. The Defendants pay the Plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the application. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 8 OF 2007
BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
Applicant
AND: MINING PROJECTS GROUP LIMITED (ACN 006 189 331) (FORMERLY YAMARNA GOLDFIELDS LIMITED)
First Respondent
BRYAN JOHN FROST
Second Respondent
RICHARD REVELINS
Third Respondent
JUDGE: GORDON J
DATE: 24 JANUARY 2008
PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION 1 In Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Mining Projects Group Limited [2007] FCA 1620 at [1], Finkelstein J described these proceedings in the following terms: In this action, which is still in its interlocutory phase, the plaintiff, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission seeks various forms of relief in respect of alleged contraventions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The defendants are Mining Projects Group Limited (MPG), a minerals exploration company, and two of its directors, Mr Frost and Mr Revelins. ASIC contends that in breach of s 1041H MPG made misleading public announcements about the mineralisation and exploration potential for uranium mining at Niue Island in the South Pacific. The nub of the complaint is that the potential was overstated. The directors are alleged to have knowingly procured the breach and thereby contravened ss 180 and 181, the directors' duties sections. There are also claims that the directors engaged in insider trading (s 1043A) and improperly used company information (s 183). The only relief sought against MPG is a declaration that it contravened s 1041H. But ASIC seeks the imposition of pecuniary penalties against the directors (s 1317G) and an order that they be disqualified from managing a corporation (s 206C). … The Defendants seek a stay of the claims made against MPG by ASIC on alternate bases. They seek a stay of the claims made against MPG by ASIC pending the hearing and determination of the claims made against Frost and Revelins and, presumably, any appeal in relation to those claims. Alternatively, they seek a stay of the claims made against MPG by ASIC until the Court has made findings of fact in relation to the claims against Frost and Revelins but before final orders.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate