Tuesday, February 14, 2012

UNENFORCEABLE CONTACTS: WHAT TO WATCH OUT FOR


What kinds of contracts might not hold up in court?

Since a contract is a legally binding agreement, in the typical scenario, once you enter into a contract with another person or business, you and the other party are both expected to fulfill the terms of the contract. But it's possible for an otherwise valid contract to be found unenforceable in the eyes of the law, and this article looks at some common situations where that might be the case.

Lack of Capacity

It's expected that both (or all) parties to a contract have the ability to understand exactly what it is they are agreeing to. If it appears that one side did not have this reasoning capacity, the contract may be held unenforceable against that person. The issue of capacity to contract usually comes up when one side of the agreement is too young or does not have the mental wherewithal to completely understand the agreement and its implications. The general idea here is to prevent an unscrupulous person from taking advantage of someone who lacks the ability to make a reasoned decision. To learn more, check out Nolo's article Who Lacks the Capacity to Contract?

Duress

duress, or coercion, will invalidate a contract when someone was threatened into making the agreement. In an often cited case involving duress, a shipper (Company A) agreed to transport a certain amount of Company B's materials, which would be used in a major development project. After Company B's project was underway and Company A's ship was en route with the materials, Company A refused to complete the trip unless Company B agreed to pay a higher price. Company B was forced to pay the jacked-up rate because there was no other way to get the material, and not completing the job would lead to unsustainable losses. The court ultimately found that this agreement to raise the price was not enforceable, because it came about through duress. Another common example of duress is blackmail.

Undue Influence

If Person B forced Person A to enter into an agreement by taking advantage of a special or particularly persuasive relationship that Person B had with Person A, the resulting contract might be found unenforceable on grounds of undue influence. In general, to prove undue influence, Person A would have to show that Person B used excessive pressure against Person A during the bargaining process, and that for whatever reason Person A was overly susceptible to the pressure tactics -- or that Person B exploited a confidential relationship to exert pressure on Person A.

Misrepresentation

If fraud or misrepresentation occurred during the negotiation process, any resulting contract will probably be held unenforceable. The idea here is to encourage honest, good faith bargaining and transactions. Misrepresentations commonly occur when a party says something false (telling a potential buyer that a house is termite-free when it is not) or, in some other way, conceals or misrepresents a state of affairs (concealing evidence of structural damage in a house's foundation with paint or a particular placement of furniture).

Nondisclosure

Nondisclosure is essentially misrepresentation through silence -- when someone neglects to disclose an important fact about the deal. Courts look at various issues to decide whether a party had a duty to disclose the information, but courts will also consider whether the other party could or should have easily been able to access the same information. It should be noted that parties have a duty to disclose only material facts. But if Party A specifically asks Party B about a fact (material or non-material), then Party B has a duty to disclose the truth.
When contract disputes involve fraudulent dealings like misrepresentation or nondisclosure, and one side of the agreement has already suffered financial losses as a result, a lawsuit for breach of contract might be filed over the matter. Learn more in Nolo's article Breach of Contract: Material Breach.

Unconscionability

Unconscionability means that a term in the contract or something inherent in or about the agreement was so shockingly unfair that the contract simply cannot be allowed to stand as is. The idea here again is to ensure fairness, so a court will consider:
  • whether one side has grossly unequal bargaining power
  • whether one side had difficulty understanding the terms of the agreement (due to language or literacy issues, for example), or
  • whether the terms themselves were unfair (like sky-high arbitration costs; read more in Nolo's article Arbitration Clauses in Contracts).
If a court does find a contract unconscionable, it has options other than just voiding the agreement altogether. It may instead choose to enforce the conscionable parts of the contract and rewrite the unconscionable term or clause, for example.

Public Policy

Contracts can be found unenforceable on grounds of public policy not only to protect one of the parties involved, but also because what the contract represents could pose harm to society as a whole. For example, a court will never enforce a contract promoting something already against state or federal law (you can never enforce a contract for an illegal marijuana sale) or an agreement that offends the "public sensibilities" (contracts involving some sort of sexual immorality, for example). Other examples of contracts (or contracts clauses) that are against public policy and therefore unenforceable include:
  • an employer forcing an employee to sign a contract that forbids workers from joining a union
  • an employer forcing an employee to sign a contract forbidding medical leave
  • a landlord forcing a tenant to sign a contract forbidding medically necessary companion animals such as seeing eye dogs, and
  • contracts for child custody are invalid in California if their terms are not in line with the child's best interest.

Mistake

Sometimes a contract is unenforceable not because of purposeful bad faith by one party, but due to a mistake on the part of one party (called a "unilateral mistake") or both parties (called a "mutual mistake"). In either case, the mistake must have been about something important related to the contract, and it must have had a material (significant) effect on the exchange or bargaining process.

Impossibility

In some cases, a contract is deemed unenforceable because it would be impossible or impracticable to carry out its terms -- too difficult or too expensive, for example. To claim impossibility, you would need to show that:
  • you can't complete performance under the contract because of some unexpected event that's not your fault
  • the contract didn't make the risk of the unexpected event something you needed to shoulder, and
  • performing the contract will be much more difficult or expensive now.
For example, if Company A contracts to sell 20 barrels of its flour to Company B and a natural disaster wipes out Company A's entire stock of flour before the sale can be completed, Company A might be able to have the contract ruled unenforceable on grounds of impossibility.
For more information on contracts, read Nolo's new book Contracts: The Essential Business Desk Reference, by attorney Rich Stim (Nolo).
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, February 11, 2012

DEAN CLIFFORD-Q&A CLARIFYING THE FACTS–FULL LENGTH LECTURE

Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, February 10, 2012

“STOP RESISTING MOTHERFUCKER"--COPS BEAT MOTORIST IN DIABETIC SHOCK

By Radley Balko
Here is what you’re seeing:

A Highway Patrol trooper enters the scene first, gun drawn, and kicks the driver’s window of Greene’s four-door sedan. After several moments, the trooper opens the door.

The trooper, his gun still raised, then gives Greene conflicting commands. He first tells him not to move, then tells him to come forward.

A second trooper quickly cuffs Greene’s wrist and pulls him from the car, which rolls forward until an officer stops it.

Greene flops to the ground, clearly dazed as five officers rush him. A sixth officer, with Henderson police, enters the frame late and delivers five well-placed kicks to Greene’s face.

“Stop resisting mother (expletive)!” one officer yells.

Greene doesn’t scream until a second Henderson officer knees him in the midsection — and then does it three more times. Greene was later treated for fractured ribs.

Police suspected Greene was intoxicated as he weaved among lanes about 4 a.m. on Oct. 29, 2010, and finally stopped his car near Lake Mead Parkway and Boulder Highway in Henderson.

But that wasn’t the case, which they soon discovered after they searched Greene.

“Call in medical,” one officer says in the video. “We found some insulin in his pocket. … He’s semiconscious.”

“Let’s get medical out here. He’s a diabetic, he’s probably in shock,” the officer later tells dispatch.

Greene’s lawsuit said officers then forced him to stand by a patrol car in handcuffs and blow into a Breathalyzer, despite being injured. Paramedics later arrived and treated him for low blood sugar.

Greene was released without a citation, and officers apologized to him for “beating him up,” the lawsuit said.

He immediately went to a hospital, where he was treated for the broken ribs and the bruises to his hands, neck, face and scalp, the lawsuit said.

One of the harsher moments in the video comes near the end of the clip, when one officer can be heard laughing loudly.

One officer notes that Greene “was not a small guy.” An officer laughs and says, “I couldn’t take him by myself.”
Several points:

  • This certainly isn’t the first time cops have mistaken diabetic shock for intoxication--and with similar results. We’ve also seen a number of incidents where cops have mistaken epileptic seizures for aggressive behavior, often resulting in a Tasering. The root problem here is the same as that with the cops who mistakenly mistake a bounding or territorial dog with an aggressive one, and then kill it. The cops get excused because they made “honest mistakes.” (Though in this case, the honest mistake ended with mistaking low blood sugar for intoxication.)  But that means they haven’t been trained properly. At some point, enough of these stories should have made the news that departments across the country would begin to implement such training. That doesn’t appear to be happening.
  • Note that at one point in the video, after they’ve just beaten a helpless man, one cop asks his fellow officers if any of them are hurt.
  • Not only were none of these cops criminally charged, every one of them is apparently still protecting and serving the public. The story indicates one seargeant was “disciplined,” but we aren’t allowed to know what that discipline was. The department also claims to have changed some policies in response to the incident. But we aren’t allowed to know exactly what those changes are, either.
  • We also aren’t allowed to know the names of any of the officers in the video. This is inexcusable. It seems pretty clear that there’s a culture problem, here. Mistaking a diabetic for a drunk is bad enough. Beating him senseless when he clearly posed no threat is criminal. And yelling “Stop Resisting!” at a man who is clearly not resisting is indicative of a police culture in which excessive force is common enough that the officers know what to say as they’re beating someone to give them cover later. Laughing after you’ve just beaten a man, and after you’ve just discovered he was a diabetic is straight-up pathological. All of which means there’s plenty of reason to doubt this particular department’s internal review process. These officers names need to be released, so journalists and police watchdog groups outside of law enforcement can look into their histories on the job.
  • Greene and his family were given a $292,500 settlement, which of course will be funded by taxpayers, not the cops who beat him senseless. This too needs to change. The cops who beat green should be forfeiting a portion of their paychecks to him for the rest of their lives. And those paychecks should preferably be compensation for work other than police work.
MORE: Digby runs off a few other incidents in which police Tasered diabetics after wrongly assuming they were intoxicated.
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=38321
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, February 9, 2012

PRISONER BONDS–MELBOURNE COUNTY COURT–PRIVATELY OWNED COMPANY–LIBERTY GROUP–CHALLENGER LTD

By Freedom Fighter, member of important Australian web site ‘SOUTHERN FREEMAN’. Originally published @ http://www.southernfreemen.com/forum/topics/prisoner-bonds-melbourne-county-court-privately-owned-company
this topic disturbs me greatly
I find it extremely worrying that the melbourne county court , where i have to appear in two weeks is a privately owned company , solely to make profit .
How can people expect a fair trial when the sole purpose of this organization and its subsidiaries is, to make money and lots of it .
..courtrooms for hire, says a great deal about the judicial system here in victoria .
...are judges and magistrates for hire also....police for hire ?
seems they all have a price for their services
...they also protect their commercial operation with G4S and ISS private mercanaries ..
BIG MONEY IN INPRISONMENT >
"...Prison bonds are a subset of a fixed income security class called lease revenue bonds (LRBs). Lease revenue bonds used to finance prisons have a few characteristics that make them attractive to investors--not the least of which is their relative safety compared to their yield. Further, they are exempt from state taxation for residents of the state of issue.
If you're looking for enhanced yield without imprudently ratcheting up your risk, read on..."
WTF !!

Owners and Operators of the Victorian County Court Facility

The Liberty Group Consortium Pty Ltd (TLG) was established to design, develop, finance, construct, own and manage the County Court Facility through a Public Private Partnership (PPP) with the State of Victoria.

The County Court Facility provides a unique opportunity where courtrooms, not booked by the County Court, can be used for a range of appropriate uses, such as:
  • arbitrations and mediations;
  • courts, boards, commissions, or tribunals; and
  • seminars, lectures, and moot courts.

Please see below for more information about TLG, their services and Courtroom Hire.

The Liberty Group
3/250 William Street
Melbourne 3000

Internet: http://www.thelibertygroup.com.au/
Email: enquiries@thelibertygroup.com.au
Enquiries/Bookings: Tel: 9601 6200; Fax: 9600 3366
The Victorian County Court Facility was opened in 2002. It is privately owned, maintained and operated by The Liberty Group, a wholly owned subsidiary of Challenger Limited.
The Facility was constructed to a premium quality in accordance with a public private partnership agreement. The Liberty Group provides the accommodation, security and information technology services. The State of Victoria provides the County Court judicial and administrative services.
Extracted from ASIC's database at AEST 10:57:34 on 10/02/2012
Name
THE LIBERTY GROUP CONSORTIUM PTY LTD
ACN
082 564 289
ABN
79 082 564 289
Australian Proprietary Company, Limited By Shares
Registration Date
08/05/1998
Next Review Date
08/05/2012
Registered
Locality of Registered Office
Sydney NSW 2000
Australian Securities & Investments Commission
Former Name(s)
TOUROS PTY LTD
These are the documents that ASIC has most recently received from or in relation to this organisation. Page numbers are shown if processing is complete and the document is available for purchase.
Date
Number
Pages
Description
04/03/2011
7E3515893
2
484E Change to Company Details Appointment or Cessation of A
Company Officeholder
17/04/2008
7E1573430
2
484A1 Change to Company Details Change Officeholder Name Or
Address
06/03/2008
7E1512806
2
484E Change to Company Details Appointment or Cessation of A
Company Officeholder

About Challenger

Established in 1985, Challenger Limited is a large Australian financial institution listed on the Australian Securities Exchange.
Our business is dedicated to providing safe, reliable and high-performing fixed income products to a wide range of institutional, superannuation and retail clients.
Challenger's annuity and annuity-like offerings are unique in the marketplace. They are protected by the capital and income guarantee of our prudentially-regulated life company, yet also offer attractive rates of return that often exceed those offered by bank term deposits and investment-grade bond funds.
Challenger's annuities are commonly used by institutions, retail customers and financial advisers to:
  • Provide stable, regular retirement income that is payable yearly, half-yearly, quarterly or monthly 
  • Invest cash securely for the medium to long-term (up to 50 years)
  • Diversify from other secure investments such as bank term deposits
Extracted from ASIC's database at AEST 10:59:54 on 10/02/2012
Name
CHALLENGER LIMITED
ACN
106 842 371
ABN
85 106 842 371
Australian Public Company, Limited By Shares
Registration Date
06/11/2003
Next Review Date
06/11/2012
Registered
Locality of Registered Office
Sydney NSW 2000
Australian Securities & Investments Commission
Former Name(s)
CHALLENGER FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP LIMITED
These are the documents that ASIC has most recently received from or in relation to this organisation. Page numbers are shown if processing is complete and the document is available for purchase.
Date
Number
Pages
Description
06/02/2012
5E2926639
6
7053A Disclosure Notice - Ex Australian Stock Exchange
02006 ASX Shareholder Details - Other
23/01/2012
5E2916466
6
7053A Disclosure Notice - Ex Australian Stock Exchange
02006 ASX Shareholder Details - Other
23/01/2012
7E4230961
2
492 Request For Correction
Extracted from ASIC's database at AEST 10:59:54 on 10/02/2012
Name
CHALLENGER FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
ACN
087 464 131
ABN
38 087 464 131
Australian Public Company, Limited By Shares
Registration Date
06/05/1999
Next Review Date
06/05/2012
Registered
Locality of Registered Office
Sydney NSW 2000
Australian Securities & Investments Commission
Former Name(s)
CHALLENGER LIMITED
CHALLENGER HEDGING LIMITED
These are the documents that ASIC has most recently received from or in relation to this organisation. Page numbers are shown if processing is complete and the document is available for purchase.
Date
Number
Pages
Description
09/09/2011
7E3939121
14
388A (FR 2011) Financial Report Financial Report - Public Company Or
Disclosing Entity
10/03/2011
7E3530242
2
484E Change to Company Details Appointment or Cessation of A
Company Officeholder
03/03/2011
7E3514464
2
484E Change to Company Details Appointment or Cessation of A
Company Officeholder
Board of directors
Peter Polson - Chairman
Peter Polson was appointed Chairman of Challenger in June 2004. Previously, he held the position of Group Executive, Investment and Insurance Services at the Commonwealth Bank, where he was responsible for all investment and insurance services for the group. Mr Polson retired from the Commonwealth Bank in October 2002. Since the early 1990s Mr Polson has held a number of executive roles in financial services including positions at the Colonial group and National Mutual Funds Management (International) Limited.  
Dominic Stevens - Chief Executive Officer
Prior to accepting the role of Chief Executive Officer in September 2008, Dominic Stevens was Deputy Managing Director of Challenger. Mr Stevens joined Challenger in September 2003 during which time he primarily held responsibility for overseeing Challenger's capital, risk management and strategy group.
Prior to joining Challenger, Mr Stevens led the foundation and was the Senior Managing Director of Zurich Capital Markets in the Asian region. Zurich Capital Markets Asia, specialised in the areas of structured finance, derivative solutions and provision of risk management products to investors in alternative assets.
From 1987 to 1999 Mr Stevens held a number of senior roles at Bankers Trust. Mr Stevens was a Partner of Bankers Trust Company, where he headed the Bankers Trust commodity businesses globally (ex energy). In addition Mr Stevens was responsible for the derivatives risk management business at Bankers Trust Australia.
Mr. Stevens was awarded a Bachelor of Commerce (Hons) Finance in 1986 from the University of New South Wales, Sydney Australia.    
Russell Hooper
Russell Hooper was previously a director and chairman of the audit committee for Commonwealth Insurance Limited, a subsidiary of the Commonwealth Bank. Mr Hooper was also previously Chief General Manager, Funds Management at St. George Bank Limited and prior to that held various positions within the financial services group at Advance Bank Limited and St. George Bank Limited for more than thirteen years.    
Graham Cubbin
Graham Cubbin joined the Challenger Board in January 2004. Mr Cubbin was a Senior Executive with CPH from 1990 until September 2005, including Chief Financial Officer for 13 years. Prior to joining CPH, Mr Cubbin held senior finance positions with a number of major companies including Capita Finance Group and Ford Motor Company.      
Leon Zwier
Leon Zwier became an independent director on the board in September 2006. He is a lawyer from Melbourne, a partner in legal firm Arnold Bloch Leibler since 1991, whose practice focuses on commercial litigation and dispute resolution; and corporate recovery and insolvency.
Jonathan GrunzweigJonathan Grunzweig became a director of the board in November 2010. Based in California, USA, he is Principal and Chief Investment Officer (CIO) of Colony Capital, LLC, and oversees the sourcing, structuring, execution and management of all Colony Capital investments and divestments on a global basis. Prior to joining Colony in 1999, Mr. Grunzweig was a Partner with the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, where he specialised in corporate finance and mergers and acquisitions.
Brenda ShanahanBrenda Shanahan became a director of the board in April 2011.  Ms Shanahan is a Graduate of Melbourne University in Economics and Commerce and a Fellow of the Institute of Directors.  Ms Shanahan has a research and institutional background in finance in Australia and overseas economies and sharemarkets.  She has held executive positions in stock broking, investment management and an actuarial firm.  Ms Shanahan is also a non-executive director of Clinuvel Pharmaceuticals Limited.

Executive management

Dominic Stevens - Chief Executive OfficerPrior to accepting the role of Chief Executive Officer in September 2008, Dominic Stevens was Deputy Managing Director of Challenger. Mr Stevens joined Challenger in September 2003 during which time he primarily held responsibility for overseeing Challenger's capital, risk management and strategy group.
Prior to joining Challenger, Mr Stevens led the foundation and was the Senior Managing Director of Zurich Capital Markets in the Asian region. Zurich Capital Markets Asia, specialised in the areas of structured finance, derivative solutions and provision of risk management products to investors in alternative assets.
From 1987 to 1999 Mr Stevens held a number of senior roles at Bankers Trust. Mr Stevens was a Partner of Bankers Trust Company, where he headed the Bankers Trust commodity businesses globally (ex energy). In addition Mr Stevens was responsible for the derivatives risk management business at Bankers Trust Australia.
Mr. Stevens was awarded a Bachelor of Commerce (Hons) Finance in 1986 from the University of New South Wales, Sydney Australia.
Brian Benari - Chief Financial Officer / Chief Operating OfficerBrian Benari is responsible for the Group's operational areas, which includes finance, legal, tax, compliance, information technology and corporate affairs functions.    
Mr Benari joined Challenger in 2003 and prior to taking on this role in November 2008, Mr Benari was Chief Executive of Challenger Mortgage Management, establishing the division with the acquisition of Interstar Securities, one of Australia's largest mortgage lenders. Under Mr Benari's leadership the division expanded to include residential and commercial mortgage lending arms as well as owning or having material interests in three of the four largest mortgage broker platform operations in Australia.   
Mr Benari, a Chartered Accountant, was with Zurich Capital Markets Asia in the role of Chief Operating Officer/Chief Financial Officer and has also held senior executive roles with Macquarie Bank and Bankers Trust.
Richard Howes - Chief Executive, LifeIn November 2008 Richard Howes was appointed to the role of Chief Executive Life, with overall executive responsibility for the management of Challenger's APRA regulated Life Company. Prior to this appointment Mr Howes held dual roles at Challenger, firstly as the Principal Executive Officer - Balance Sheet, and secondly as Head of Debt Investments, responsible for the creation and management of specialised funds within the areas of fixed income, structured credit, hedge funds and other alternative investment asset classes.  
Mr Howes joined Challenger in June 2003 from Zurich Capital Markets where he was responsible for the derivatives franchise that provided risk management solutions to major companies and institutions globally. Prior to that time, Mr Howes was co-head of Agricultural Commodities at Macquarie Bank in Chicago where he was responsible for staff in Chicago, New York, London, Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, and Sydney. Mr Howes also spent six years at Bankers Trust within the financial markets group in financial and commodity derivatives.
Robert Woods - Chief Executive, Funds ManagementRob Woods is responsible for Challenger's Funds Management business, which includes our Boutique Partnership and Aligned Investment activities. The business manages over $22 billion of FUM for both our clients and the Life Company. Rob joined Challenger in November 2003 and prior to taking his current role, he was the Chief Executive of Challenger's Asset Management business which included Challenger Life and our Specialised Fund activities. In this role Rob was responsible for managing over $10 billion of assets, in the Infrastructure, Real Estate and Credit asset classes.
Paul Rogan - Chief Executive, Distribution, Product & MarketingPaul Rogan joined Challenger in November 2005 and was appointed to his current role in January 2011. In this newly created role Mr Rogan is responsible for the strategic direction and co-ordination of the Group's distribution, product and marketing functions. Mr Rogan has over 25 years experience in financial services both in Australia and overseas, including executive management roles at Lend Lease and NAB (where Mr Rogan was CEO of NAB's Wealth Management operations in Europe). Mr Rogan's prior roles with Challenger include Group Chief Financial Officer and Executive General Manager, Capital Risk & Strategy.
Richard Willis - Chief Risk OfficerRichard Willis joined Challenger in November 2003 and was appointed to his current role in January 2011. Prior to taking on his current role Mr Willis was Head of Risk and Treasury where he was responsible for overseeing Challenger's treasury and risk functions.
Prior to joining Challenger, Mr Willis held senior roles at Zurich Capital Markets (Asian region) specializing in areas of structured finance and at Bankers Trust in the Debt Capital Markets division specializing in securitization.
Blair Beaton - Head of Strategy and Mergers & AcquisitionsBlair Beaton joined Challenger in July 2003 and since that time has been involved in all of the Company's significant strategic initiatives. Prior to joining Challenger he was a partner in a Canadian corporate finance advisory boutique. Mr Beaton worked at Price Waterhouse in Canada and Australia and has specialised in strategy and M&A for over 20 years.
Jennifer Wheatley - Executive General Manager Human Resources  Jennifer Wheatley joined Challenger in October 2002. Prior to this Ms Wheatley was Human Resources Manager at Mistearl Northshore the largest franchisee of Shell Service Stations in Australia. Ms Wheatley has provided HR consultancy services to numerous companies in Australia, including the Peugeot Dealer Group, during its transfer to the Sime Darby Motor Group; Wattyl and the Oroton Group.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...Prison bonds are a subset of a fixed income security class called lease revenue bonds (LRBs). Lease revenue bonds used to finance prisons have a few characteristics that make them attractive to investors--not the least of which is their relative safety compared to their yield. Further, they are exempt from state taxation for residents of the state of issue.
If you're looking for enhanced yield without imprudently ratcheting up your risk, read on.
Shoving aside the legal fiction created by these transactions, a lease revenue bond is actually a loan made to the state by the bond holders that is repaid by income (revenue) generated by the project...."

people involved in the operation of the melbourne county court have been or are still involved heavily with the following organisations
Colonial group 
National Mutual Funds Management (International) Limited. 
Commonwealth Bank
Zurich Capital Markets 
Bankers Trust
Advance Bank Limited 
St. George Bank Limited 
Capita Finance Group 
Ford Motor Company 
Arnold Bloch Leibler
Colony Capital
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
Clinuvel Pharmaceuticals Limited
Interstar Securities
Macquarie Bank
the Life Company
Lend Lease 
NAB
Price Waterhouse
Mistearl Northshore
shell
money money money ...
"...Prison bonds are a subset of a fixed income security class called lease revenue bonds (LRBs). Lease revenue bonds used to finance prisons have a few characteristics that make them attractive to investors--not the least of which is their relative safety compared to their yield. Further, they are exempt from state taxation for residents of the state of issue.
If you're looking for enhanced yield without imprudently ratcheting up your risk...
...Shoving aside the legal fiction created by these transactions, a lease revenue bond is actually a loan made to the state by the bond holders that is repaid by income (revenue) generated by the project...."


OK, so remembering that the County Court is a trading name for the business called ‘STATE OF VICTORIA–DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’, which corporately governs VICTORIA POLICE,
WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LIBERTY, the parent company, CHALLENGER, and the STATE OF VICTORIA–DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE?
http://www.abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.aspx?abn=32790228959
Posted by at 9 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)