Background of the case:
As per the case, Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Soust [2010] FCA 68 Dr. Martin Soust ‘the defendant’ was the Managing Director and CEO of Select Vaccines Limited who also happens to be the director of Martin Soust & Co. Pty Ltd. Select Vaccines, a biotechnology firm outsourced services to Martin & Soust Co, where the company had to provide consulting services to Select Vaccines. In return for the prompt and undivided interest in promoting Select Vaccines’ objectives and goals, it was agreed that the defendant would be awarded $245,000 per annum excluding GST and a bonus which was subjected to the financial performance of Select Vaccines during the financial year.
The terms of the contract applicable …show more content…
Soust, in response to which the defendant assured that his mother trades in shares like any other individual and it has nothing to do with him. However, the officer from ASX was not completely convinced and upon further investigation into the matter, Mr. Collins managed to find a crucial evidence from the defendant’s laptop. The evidence was sufficient to conclude that the defendant was not only aware of the share trading but was consciously involved in the transaction of trading the Select Vaccines shares for his personal interest and moreover, the defendant was trying to cover up the loose ends to his crime(ASIC v Soust, 2010, pp. 11,12 & 16). Application & Conclusion
The defendant in his defence pleaded that, he was acting in the personal capacity and not as a director of Select Vaccines while purchasing 104,000 shares on behalf of his mother(ASIC v Soust, 2010, p. 18).
In this situation, on the application of objective test, it is crystal clear that the defendant was not acting in the best interest of the company’s policies to which he was primarily obligated. Further, as any director would easily know and be aware of the consequences of creating the artificial share price, it seems that, the defendant clearly took advantage of his position and his access to inside information. To add more, the defendant did not …show more content…
Also if the defendant should pay a pecuniary penalty regarding his contraventions ss1041A, 1041B, 181(1) and 182(1) of the Act and if any orders should be made pursuant to s206C(1) of the Act disqualifying the defendant from managing corporations for a period considered appropriate by the court. However, the costs involved in the proceedings be reserved for further consideration.(ASIC v Soust, 2010, p. 5,6)
To add a special note – settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
In the mentioned case, the defendant denied that while making the purchase of shares he was acting in the capacity of Director of Select Vaccines. He pleaded that he was acting in a personal capacity. However, no evidence could support this argument of the defendant.
Thus, a final decision for the case ASIC v Soust was submitted on 23rd April 2010 where a pecuniary penalty of $80,000 was ordered to the defendant and Martin Soust (the defendant) was disqualified from managing corporations for 10 years. The court also ordered Soust to pay ASIC, the plaintiff, all the costs of proceedings related to the
As per the case, Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Soust [2010] FCA 68 Dr. Martin Soust ‘the defendant’ was the Managing Director and CEO of Select Vaccines Limited who also happens to be the director of Martin Soust & Co. Pty Ltd. Select Vaccines, a biotechnology firm outsourced services to Martin & Soust Co, where the company had to provide consulting services to Select Vaccines. In return for the prompt and undivided interest in promoting Select Vaccines’ objectives and goals, it was agreed that the defendant would be awarded $245,000 per annum excluding GST and a bonus which was subjected to the financial performance of Select Vaccines during the financial year.
The terms of the contract applicable …show more content…
Soust, in response to which the defendant assured that his mother trades in shares like any other individual and it has nothing to do with him. However, the officer from ASX was not completely convinced and upon further investigation into the matter, Mr. Collins managed to find a crucial evidence from the defendant’s laptop. The evidence was sufficient to conclude that the defendant was not only aware of the share trading but was consciously involved in the transaction of trading the Select Vaccines shares for his personal interest and moreover, the defendant was trying to cover up the loose ends to his crime(ASIC v Soust, 2010, pp. 11,12 & 16). Application & Conclusion
The defendant in his defence pleaded that, he was acting in the personal capacity and not as a director of Select Vaccines while purchasing 104,000 shares on behalf of his mother(ASIC v Soust, 2010, p. 18).
In this situation, on the application of objective test, it is crystal clear that the defendant was not acting in the best interest of the company’s policies to which he was primarily obligated. Further, as any director would easily know and be aware of the consequences of creating the artificial share price, it seems that, the defendant clearly took advantage of his position and his access to inside information. To add more, the defendant did not …show more content…
Also if the defendant should pay a pecuniary penalty regarding his contraventions ss1041A, 1041B, 181(1) and 182(1) of the Act and if any orders should be made pursuant to s206C(1) of the Act disqualifying the defendant from managing corporations for a period considered appropriate by the court. However, the costs involved in the proceedings be reserved for further consideration.(ASIC v Soust, 2010, p. 5,6)
To add a special note – settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
In the mentioned case, the defendant denied that while making the purchase of shares he was acting in the capacity of Director of Select Vaccines. He pleaded that he was acting in a personal capacity. However, no evidence could support this argument of the defendant.
Thus, a final decision for the case ASIC v Soust was submitted on 23rd April 2010 where a pecuniary penalty of $80,000 was ordered to the defendant and Martin Soust (the defendant) was disqualified from managing corporations for 10 years. The court also ordered Soust to pay ASIC, the plaintiff, all the costs of proceedings related to the