Rememberance Day 11 November 2012

Lest We Forget

 

 

 

Photograph of part of the Commemorative Courtyard at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra

from First House On The Right



Cardinal George Pell on child sexual abuse in Australia

 

This is the cleric from whom Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is known to take advice.

 

Pell's perspective encapsulated:
 

Child sexual abuse? An historical anomaly. Never a systemic failing within the church.

There is insufficient evidence to justify a NSW royal commission into these assaults.

Anyway, we’ve been unfairly vilified.

It’s all the fault of universal original sin and anti-Catholic prejudice.

In which Standard & Poors, ABN Amro and Local Government Financial Services Pty Ltd are found liable for Australian local government financial losses

 

Excerpts from Justice Jayne Jagot's reasons for judgment in the matter of Bathurst Regional Council v Local Government Financial Services Pty Ltd (No 5) [2012] FCA 1200 (5 November 2012):

 

12.5.3.7 IMPACT OF THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS

1. For the reasons already given I do not accept that the GFC was the real, essential or effective cause of the loss or damage incurred by the councils…..

16. CONCLUSIONS

1. For the reasons given in the preceding sections I am satisfied that:

(a) the councils' claims for rescission of the agreements by which they purchased the Rembrandt 2006-3 CPDO notes from LGFS and restitution (both under statute and otherwise) should not be accepted;

(b) leaving aside some aspects of their claims immaterial to their overall entitlement to damages, the councils are each entitled to succeed in their various claims for damages against LGFS, S&P and ABN Amro;

(c) the claims of LGFS, S&P and ABN Amro against the councils for contributory negligence and being largely responsible for their own loss, with the consequence that the damages payable to each council must be reduced, should not be accepted;

(d) the councils have each proved that they suffered loss and damage as required to sustain their claims against LGFS, S&P and ABN Amro, the damage being the amount each paid for the Rembrandt 2006-3 CPDO notes less the amount they received on the cash-out of those notes. No deduction for coupon payments received by the councils should be made;

(e) this is also the proper measure of damages payable to Cooma and Corowa in respect of their breach of contract claims against LGFS;

(f) other than in respect of their claims for equitable compensation from LGFS for breach of fiduciary duty, the councils' damages claims against LGFS, S&P and ABN Amro attract the various proportionate liability provisions and liability for the councils' damages should be apportioned as between LGFS, S&P and ABN Amro as to 33⅓% each;

(g) the councils' claims for equitable compensation from LGFS for breach of fiduciary duty should also be sustained. While this compensation is not apportionable the measure of compensation is the same as the councils' damages claims;

(h) there is an outstanding issue as to the interest which the councils should receive, ABN Amro having argued that pre-judgment and perhaps post-judgment interest should not exceed the interest which would have been payable had the Rembrandt 2006-3 notes not cashed out and the other parties not having addressed that argument;

(i) LGFS is entitled to succeed in its various claims against ABN Amro and S&P including:

(i) proportionate liability of S&P and ABN Amro in terms of the councils' claims against LGFS (see above);

(ii) liability of S&P and ABN Amro to LGFS for damages in respect of the Rembrandt 2006-3 CPDO notes that LGFS purchased and did not sell to councils but sold instead to its parent company, LGSS, after S&P downgraded the rating of those notes from AAA to BBB+; and

(iii) liability of S&P and ABN Amro to make equitable contribution to LGFS in respect of LGFS's settlement of the StateCover claims against LGFS, S&P and ABN Amro relating to StateCover's purchase of the Rembrandt 2006-2 CPDO notes.

(j) the claims of S&P and ABN Amro against LGFS for contributory negligence and being largely responsible for its own loss in respect of the Rembrandt 2006-3 CPDO notes that LGFS purchased and did not sell to councils, with the consequence that the damages payable to LGFS on that account must be reduced, should not be accepted;

(k) LGFS has proved that it suffered loss and damage as required to sustain its claims against S&P and ABN Amro in respect of the Rembrandt 2006-3 CPDO notes it did not sell to councils, the damage being the amount LGFS paid for the Rembrandt 2006-3 CPDO notes less the amount LGFS received on the sale to its parent company. Again, no deduction for coupon payments received by LGFS should be made;

(l) LGFS's damages claims against S&P and ABN Amro attract the various proportionate liability provisions and liability for LGFS's damages should be apportioned as between S&P and ABN Amro as to 50% each;

(m) the issue of interest referred to above applies equally to LGFS;

(n) LGFS's claims against S&P and ABN Amro for damages or equitable contribution against S&P and ABN Amro in respect of LGFS's settlement of the StateCover proceedings should be accepted, with LGFS, S&P and ABN Amro each to contribute 33⅓% to the overall settlement sum including LGFS's costs of the proceedings;

(o) the cross-claims of S&P and ABN Amro against each other should be rejected;

(p) LGFS's claims against AHAC for indemnity under the contract of insurance should be accepted and AHAC's cross-claim against LGFS for reimbursement of defence costs already paid should be rejected; and

(q) costs, along with the outstanding issue of interest, may be argued.

 

3723.   Directions will be made for the parties to confer about a timetable for the making of any further submissions on interest and costs, as well as the making of final orders in accordance with these reasons for judgment.
 

On 24 May 2012 the Australian Securities and Investment Commission revoked Local Government Financial Services Pty Ltd's Australian Financial Services license.

 

It has been reported that Standard & Poors intends to appeal the 5 November Federal Court judgment.

Energy White Paper 2012: Supporting vulnerable customers?

 

Not worth the paper it is printed on:

 

Supporting vulnerable customers

The government recognises that rising energy costs and the unwinding of cross-subsidies have uneven distributional impacts on households, and that lower-income households face proportionally greater impacts than high-income households (see Chapter 3: Future energy trends and challenges). Therefore, retail price deregulation and greater consumer empowerment must be accompanied by appropriate protections for vulnerable customers, such as effective hardship policies, strong marketing rules, select standard terms and conditions for energy contracts, and close monitoring of market outcomes.

Ensuring that consumers, particularly those who are most vulnerable, are able to manage energy costs effectively is also increasingly important. The continued provision of adequate assistance to vulnerable consumers through a sound general safety net, well-targeted jurisdictional concession regimes and appropriate community service obligations remains critical.

Such assistance should be transparent and not undermine competitive pricing structures, which reflect, as efficiently as possible, the underlying costs of supply. It is more efficient for assistance to be provided through properly targeted social policy settings, rather than energy policy settings, to ensure that energy market signals are preserved.

 

Full Commonwealth Energy White Paper 2012 here.