Companies limited by guarantee reform
2010 Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) Consultation Paper - Related Party Transactions
The focus of PilchConnect's submission to this ASIC consultation paper is the inconsistent application of the provisions regarding the disclosure of related party transactions for companies limited by guarantee (CLGs). This inconsistency arises from the fact that the rules regarding disclosure of related party transactions are applied differently to CLGs, depending on whether they hold a name licence or not. CLGs which have been granted a name licence are exempt from the related party transaction provisions under the Act.
2010 Commonwealth Treasury - Companies limited by guarantee
On 4 December 2009, the Commonwealth Treasury announced a proposal to amend the Corporations Law which will affect the 'company limited by guarantee' legal structure. There are currently over 11,000 not-for-profit organisations that use this legal structure.
A draft Bill was released setting out changes to the reporting obligations of these (not-for-profit) companies and submissions were called for. On 2 February 2010, PilchConnect made a submission on the draft Bill. By way of background, note that PilchConnect also made a submission on the 2007 discussion paper that first raised possible reforms.
2007 Commonwealth Treasury - Unlisted public companies review
The Commonwealth Treasury as part of its review of the Corporations Act generally examined the provisions that relate to financial reporting by unlisted public companies. This group of companies includes companies limited by guarantee.
This Federal review is important because it could alter the reporting obligations of about 11,000 existing not-for-profit (NFP) organisations. If reforms are made, it could also influence the legal structure chosen by existing and future NFPs (eg. whether to be incorporated as a company limited by guarantee or an incorporated association).
PilchConnect, with support from its member firm Clayton Utz, held an (informal) expert think tank to discuss the questions raised under the Federal review and the broader issue of the most appropriate regulatory framework for NFPs. Drawing on the think tank discussion, PilchConnect made a written submission (August 2007).