Law Banking

In the news article, Bank Sues Crown Casino[1], the main problem addressed is the recovery of stolen money which was gambled in casino. The money involved is amounting to $3.5 million. Kate Leanne Jamieson, loan officer of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, caused the problem by stealing the said amount of money and gambled part of it in the Crown casino.[2] Upon discovery of the stolen money, the bank filed for recovery of the amount against the casino. The problem that is prevalent here is whether stolen money can be recovered when it has been gambled in casino.

In the article, there was no legislation applicable in the problem. However, the event may put attention on the strengthening of laws or policies applicable to casinos that will stop fraud by scrutinizing their clients. In addition, it may also stress the responsibility of banks to adopt systems that will prevent similar cases.

So far, Jamieson was prosecuted for four year imprisonment. However, as to the responsibility of the casino, there was no clear action enforceable against it. There is also no clear law or policy that may be used to prosecute the casino. However, when proven that it has knowledge as to the nature of the money gambled and the financial capacity of Jamieson, it may be prosecuted for being an accessory or for having participated in the commission of the unwanted event.

The source of the power to prosecute may be on the commercial law or on public policy. If a law applicable does not exist, legislation should be made in order to proscribe the same event from happening again. Such will protect banks and other institutions against whom fraud have been committed. In dealing with the problem of the bank, one solution can only be to establish the knowledge of the casino that the money was stolen and from there, recovery of some amount may prosper.

The key problem involved in the article, Perpetual takes on Bank of NY in court[3], is the action for recovery of proceeds of collateral against an insolvent company. Several investors bought Mahogany notes from a subsidiary of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Grange Securities.[4] After the insolvency has been filed, the investors were not able to benefit from the credit notes they bought. The problem arose when BYNT acknowledge the action filed by Perpetual Trustee Company (PTCo), but failed to act upon it to the detriment of the investors.[5] Hence, the main issue is the security of the investors from the bankruptcy of the companies upon which their capital have been invested.

There is no particular legislation mentioned in the article. However, several issues on investment and trusteeship are involved. In dealing with the problem, laws related to investments may be used to support the claim. Notably, in enforcing legal actions both national and international laws may be used. Since the transaction involved international companies, international laws may be of relevance.

So far, the remedy of the retail investors jeopardized by the insolvency of the Lehman brothers is to claim for proceeds of the collateral backing the Mahogany notes.[6] Apart from that, due to the financial status of Lehman and the numerous creditors that has claim against the former, the investors may only wait for the action of the court.

The event may be said to have been affected by the financial crisis being experienced in the country. In preventing further unwanted event and in the protection of investors, it may recommended that essential laws be adopted and enacted protecting the investors and ensuring that companies have the capacity of surviving financial crisis by having more than enough trust funds to repay its creditors.

Finally, in the article Bank sues Lear to recoup $35 million[7] the problem presented is the recovery of the fees unpaid after the failure to comply with the credit terms agreed upon. However, another problem that is visible here is the contradicting actions of the parties as to the remedying the problem.

As to Lear, the participation of the bank in the default waiver contradicts to its action of filing a claim. As to the bank, it is only interested in recouping the money. Hence, the origin of the problem is the default of Lear in complying with its obligation with the bank. Apart from that, it violated several rules contained in the agreement which include exceeding debt-to-equity ratio.[8]

In the article, there was no specific legislation mentioned. However, a case for recovery has been filed by the bank against the company. Though there was no law mentioned, it is clear that the bank has a legal ground because of the clear violation of the agreement.

In dealing with the problem, the Australian law may look into the fault on both bank and the company. It may be a clear violation of the company as to the credit terms. However, there has been an action of the bank, like the cancellation of the separate swapping agreement[9] that may have aggravated the financial situation of the company. Notably, the applicable law may not necessary be originated from international law because the issue may be limited to the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into by Lear and the Royal Bank of Scotland.[10]

In dealing with the problem, it may be highly recommended to enact laws protecting debtors. It may be clear that Lear defaulted from payment, however, a period within which to comply with the obligation extended and a favourable terms also be extended to the creditor. This way, the creditor will have an extended opportunity to comply with its obligations.

Bibliography

Australian Associated Press. May 15, 2009. Perpetual takes on Bank of NY in court. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,,25482628-643,00.html (accessed May 15, 2009).

Beene, Ryan. Craine’s Detroit Business. March 24, 2009. Bank sues Lear to recoup $35 million. http://www.autonews.com/article/20090324/ANA02/903249973/1128 (accessed May 15, 2009).

Hewitt, Sue. Brown sues Crown casino. April 12, 2009. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25321612-2862,00.html (accessed May 15, 2009).

[1] Hewitt, Sue Available at http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25321612-2862,00.html[2] Ibid.[3] Australian Associated Press, Available at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,,25482628-643,00.html[4] Ibid.[5] Ibid.[6] Ibid.[7] Ryan Beene, Craine’s Detroit Business, Available at http://www.autonews.com/article/20090324/ANA02/903249973/1128[8] Ibid.[9] Ibid.[10] Ibid.