Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 10 MARCH 2011

Low-ball offer caught out by inquiring responsible entity

Funds managers whose unitholders are targeted by low-ball offers can take some heart from Perpetual Investment Management's success in the NSW Supreme Court (Re Perpetual Investment Management Limited as responsible entity for Perpetual's Monthly Income Fund and Perpetual's Wholesale Monthly Income Fund [2011] NSWSC 133).

AustraliaStrategy

Funds managers whose unitholders are targeted by low-ball offers can take some heart from Perpetual Investment Management's success in the NSW Supreme Court (Re Perpetual Investment Management Limited as responsible entity for Perpetual's Monthly Income Fund and Perpetual's Wholesale Monthly Income Fund [2011] NSWSC 133).

In a landmark decision, Justice White gave guidance under the Trustee Act 1925 (NSW) that Perpetual would be justified in not registering transfers of units in response to low-ball offers, except in those cases where the unitholder had subsequently indicated to Perpetual that it still wished to proceed with the transfer. Clayton Utz acted for Perpetual.

A low-ball offer is made, and a trustee is worried

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from