avatar

Jacques Jacobs

Author's details

Name: Jacques Jacobs
Date registered: 10 September 2013

Latest posts

  1. DLA Piper In a flash: A lesson in cyber security event — 6 October 2015
  2. Cyber risk: What does the future hold? — 31 July 2015
  3. Shareholder derivative action against Wyndham Worldwide directors for data breaches — 12 May 2014
  4. Section 6 and defence costs – NZ Supreme Court overturns Bridgecorp — 6 January 2014
  5. Litigation funders in Australia – tighter regulations on the horizon? — 26 September 2013

Author's posts listings

DLA Piper In a flash: A lesson in cyber security event

Please join us for the Australian premier of a new DLA Piper film, In a flash: A lesson in cyber security on Tuesday 13 October 2015 in Sydney. This film examines cyber governance, cyber-risk management, incident response, regulatory issues and managing internal investigations. BaySan Global, a fictional company, is on the verge of landing a …

Continue reading »

Cyber risk: What does the future hold?

Click here to view our recent commentary to Insurance Business TV around cyber insurance and how the latest legal developments will affect this space going forward.

Shareholder derivative action against Wyndham Worldwide directors for data breaches

Hot on the heels of our recently released publication, ‘Cyber risks and the impact on company directors’, it has been revealed that a shareholder has commenced a derivative action in the district of New Jersey (USA) against certain directors and officers of Wyndham Worldwide Corporation in relation to 3 data breaches between 2008 and 2010.

Continue reading »

Section 6 and defence costs – NZ Supreme Court overturns Bridgecorp

On 12 July Flashlight reported on the NSW Court of Appeal’s unanimous decision that in circumstances where a section 6 charge had been asserted on insurance moneys, that charge did not extend to insurance moneys payable in respect of defence costs.  The decision made sense, was consistent with the NZ Court of Appeal’s Bridgecorp decision …

Continue reading »

Litigation funders in Australia – tighter regulations on the horizon?

To date, litigation funders in Australia have been subject only to ‘light touch’ external regulation. However, there are increasing calls to see greater scrutiny applied to these funds. On an issue which might prove a turning point for the litigation funding industry is the establishment of litigation funds by leading plaintiff law firms. On such …

Continue reading »

Section 6 – Charges doesn’t extend to defence costs

In a unanimous decision, five justices of the New South Wales (NSW) Court of Appeal found that in circumstances where a section 6 (s6) charge has been asserted on insurance moneys, that charge would not extend to insurance moneys payable in respect of defence costs. This is consistent with the New Zealand Court of Appeal’s …

Continue reading »

Protecting directors from a potential prejudice in future criminal proceedings

In the case of Australian Securities & Investment Commission (ASIC) in the matter of Northwest Resources Limited v Craigside Company Limited BVI [2013] FCA 201, the Court stayed until ASIC decides whether it will bring civil criminal prosecution relating to the same subject matter. The case importantly set out the factors a Court will consider …

Continue reading »

Directors, good character, and prison time

The case of DPP v Couper provides useful insight into the manner in which criminal courts will apply sentencing principles to white collar criminals, in this case a director guilty of falsifying the company’s accounts. Of particular interest is the manner in which the Victorian Court of Appeal dealt with the good character evidence served …

Continue reading »

Bridgecorp – The saga continues…

The New Zealand Supreme Court (New Zealand’s highest Court), has on 15 April 2013 granted leave to the receiver of the Bridgecorp group and others to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision. The Court of Appeal last year overturned the controversial decision of the New Zealand (NZ) High Court which held that a statutory charge …

Continue reading »

Fines and disqualifications confirmed (and reduced) for former James Hardie directors – the Court of Appeal decision

The New South Wales Court of Appeal judgment handed down on 12 November 2012 confirmed the penalties against James Hardie Industries’ (James Hardie) former non-executive directors and former company secretary and general counsel for their breach of duties by approving James Hardie’s release of a misleading statement to the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX).

Continue reading »

Older posts «