Get the latest views and developments in the private equity world from the Global Private Equity Watch team at Weil.
Spyridon V Bazinas, The law applicable to third-party effects of assignments of claims: the UN Convention and the EU Commission Proposal compared, Uniform Law Review , Volume 24, Issue 4, December 2019, Pages 609–632, https://doi.org/10.1093/ulr/unz032
In October 2019, the U.S. ratified the United Nations Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade (the “Convention”) by the US, thus creating a new impetus for the broad adoption and entry into force of the Convention and with that for the facilitation of international receivables finance. In March 2018, the E.U. Commission issued a Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to the third-party effects of assignments of claims (the “Commission Proposal” or “Proposal”). The Commission Proposal includes a first draft of the proposed Regulation (the “draft Regulation”). An alignment of the main rule of the draft Regulation with the equivalent rule in the Convention could result in an internationally uniform conflict-of-laws rule on this matter, which would remove the legal divergences existing among legal systems and reduce the uncertainty as to the law applicable to the third-party effects of assignments of claims. The purpose of this article is to compare the relevant rules of the Convention and the draft Regulation, determine whether this coordinated approach is achieved and, if not, make suggestions as to how it can be achieved to the benefit of all parties involved in international receivables finance.
Sign in with a library card.
Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:
Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.
Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.
If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.
Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.
Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:
Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:
If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.
Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.
A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.
Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.
Click the account icon in the top right to:
Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.
For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.
To purchase short-term access, please sign in to your personal account above.
Don't already have a personal account? Register
Month: | Total Views: |
---|---|
November 2019 | 6 |
December 2019 | 10 |
January 2020 | 12 |
February 2020 | 38 |
March 2020 | 23 |
April 2020 | 31 |
May 2020 | 8 |
June 2020 | 3 |
July 2020 | 8 |
August 2020 | 1 |
September 2020 | 6 |
October 2020 | 5 |
November 2020 | 14 |
December 2020 | 9 |
February 2021 | 8 |
March 2021 | 2 |
April 2021 | 9 |
June 2021 | 5 |
July 2021 | 8 |
August 2021 | 2 |
September 2021 | 1 |
November 2021 | 3 |
December 2021 | 5 |
January 2022 | 7 |
February 2022 | 5 |
April 2022 | 6 |
May 2022 | 6 |
June 2022 | 8 |
July 2022 | 4 |
August 2022 | 2 |
September 2022 | 2 |
October 2022 | 3 |
November 2022 | 1 |
December 2022 | 2 |
January 2023 | 5 |
February 2023 | 1 |
March 2023 | 4 |
May 2023 | 4 |
July 2023 | 2 |
September 2023 | 2 |
November 2023 | 13 |
December 2023 | 6 |
January 2024 | 1 |
February 2024 | 5 |
March 2024 | 2 |
April 2024 | 8 |
May 2024 | 3 |
June 2024 | 3 |
July 2024 | 2 |
August 2024 | 6 |
Citing articles via.
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide
The European Commission proposes to harmonise conflict of laws rules on the third-party effects of assignment of claims
When claims are assigned across borders, it's not always easy for investors, credit providers and other market participants to know which national law applies to determine who owns the assigned claims. Different national rules about the third-party (or ownership) effects of assignments of claims complicate the use of claims as collateral and make it difficult for investors to price the risk of debt investments.
Removing legal uncertainties about the ownership of claims after they have been assigned on a cross-border basis is important for the assignor and the assignee of the claims. However, it is also essential for market participants who are not party to the assignment but who interact with any of the parties and need certainty about who has legal title over the assigned claims.
The Action plan on building a capital markets union , adopted by the Commission in September 2015, envisaged targeted action on securities ownership rules and third-party effects of assignments of claims.
In order to consult all interested parties, in February 2017 the Commission published an inception impact assessment providing an overview of the problems to be addressed and the possible solutions.
In April 2017, the Commission launched a public consultation ( consultation on conflict of laws rules for third party effects of transactions in securities and claims ) and established an Expert group on conflict of laws regarding securities and claims. The members of the Expert group assisted the Commission by providing specialist advice on private international law and financial markets as a sound basis for policymaking.
On 12 March 2018, the Commission proposed the adoption of common conflict of laws rules on the third-party effects of assignments of claims . The proposal provides that, as a rule, the law of the country where the assignor has its habitual residence will govern the third-party effects of the assignment of claims. As an exception, the law of the assigned claim will govern the third-party effects of the assignment of specific claims. By introducing legal certainty, the new rules will promote cross-border investment, enhance access to credit and contribute to market integration. The proposal, which deals with the law applicable to the ownership questions of assignments of claims, complements the rules in the Rome I Regulation , which deal with the law applicable to the contractual questions of assignments of claims.
The question of the third-party effects of assignments of claims was raised when the Rome Convention was being transformed into the Rome I Regulation ( Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 ). The Rome I Regulation did not address the issue, but required the Commission to prepare a report on the matter. To that effect, the Commission asked the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) to carry out a study and the Commission presented its report in September 2016
The assignment of a claim refers to a situation where a creditor (the assignor) transfers the right to claim a debt from the debtor to another person (the assignee) who then becomes a creditor vis-a-vis the debtor (replacing in this role the original creditor). This mechanism is used by companies to obtain liquidity and access credit. At the moment, there is no legal certainty as to which national law applies when determining who owns a claim after it has been assigned in a cross-border case. The new rules proposed by the Commission will clarify which national law is applicable for the resolution of such disputes. As a general rule, the law of the country where assignors have their habitual residence applies, regardless of which Member State's courts or authorities examine the case. This proposal will promote cross-border investment and access to cheaper credit, and prevent systemic risks. Both Parliament and Council have adopted their positions, and the proposal is currently the subject of trilogue negotiations. Second edition. 'EU legislation in progress' briefings are updated at key stages throughout the legislative procedure.
Publication type.
On August 20, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion in Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court , Opinion No. S205889, an appeal from Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1506, review granted and opinion superseded sub nom. Fluor Corp. v. S.C. (Cal. 2012) 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 675 (" Fluor "). Petitioner Fluor Corporation asked the California Supreme Court to revisit its opinion in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 934 (" Henkel ").
Overruling Henkel , in an opinion written by Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, the Court unanimously sided with Fluor, holding that:
For the reasons set forth, Insurance Code section 520 applies to third party liability insurance. Under that provision, after personal injury (or property damage) resulting in loss occurs within the time limits of the policy, an insurer is precluded from refusing to honor an insured's assignment of the right to invoke defense or indemnification coverage regarding that loss. This result obtains even without consent by the insurer — and even though the dollar amount of the loss remains unknown or undetermined until established later by a judgment or approved settlement.
The Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeal for proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion.
This dispute arises out of the enforceability of anti-assignment clauses that are commonly included in insurance policies. A typical anti-assignment clause reads:
Your rights and duties under this policy may not be transferred without our written consent except in the case of death of an individual named insured.
Henkel addressed the issue of whether the insured conveyed its liability insurance policies by operation of law when it sold certain assets to a successor corporation, where those assets included liabilities (i.e., a chemical products business). Claimants sued the successor corporation for personal injuries allegedly caused by the predecessor corporation's chemical products business. The predecessor corporation's liability insurers refused to defend the claim against the corporate successor, contesting the assignment of the insurance policies. The successor corporation sued the liability insurers for refusing to defend.
Henkel held that anti-assignment clauses in liability insurance policies are enforceable except if:
(1) at the time of the assignment the benefit has been reduced to a claim for money due or to become due, or
(2) at the time of the assignment the insurer has breached a duty to the insured, and the assignment is of a cause of action to recover damages for that breach.
( Henkel at 945.) In other words, with regard to a liability policy, a court will enforce an anti-assignment clause unless the claim has already been reduced to a judgment or settlement, or the insurer has committed an assignable breach.
Fluor's facts are nearly identical to Henkel's . A successor corporation seeks coverage for asbestos claims under a predecessor corporation's liability policies. ( Fluor at 528.) The policyholder, seeking to avoid an anti-assignment clause, argues that Henkel was wrongly decided. The policyholder argues that Henkel ignored California Insurance Code section 520, enacted in 1872, which states "[a]n agreement not to transfer the claim of the insured against the insurer after a loss has happened, is void if made before the loss...." In other words, Henkel appears to conflict with Insurance Code section 520.
The Court of Appeal began its opinion by noting:
During the 130 years since its enactment, the 1872 statute has been cited only once. No one raised it in Henkel . This decision will be the second judicial opinion in the history of the state to even mention the statute, and the first to address it. ( Id. )
After reviewing cases in both California and other states, the court of appeal concluded:
Here is the nub. The 1872 Legislature drew no bright lines and made no controlling pronouncements about liability insurance, or about how "loss" in the context of such policies is to be defined. We see nothing in Insurance Code section 520 or in Henkel to support Fluor–2's assumption that the Supreme Court would have reached a different result had the parties in that appeal briefed or argued the statute's applicability. In the absence of an express legislative directive, stare decisis controls. ( Id . at 537.)
In sum, Henkel held that a policyholder can assign its rights, despite an anti-assignment clause, only after liability had been established (or a breach occurred). Fluor Corporation argued, based on statute and on common law grounds, that a policyholder can assign its rights any time after a "loss" has occurred. In the case of a liability policy, the "loss" is the event that triggers coverage under the policy (e.g., "bodily injury" or "property damage").
The California Court of Appeal in Flour sided with Hartford. The Court of Appeal concluded that section 520 does not apply to liability insurance. The appellate court further suggested that even assuming the statute applies to such policies, it should be construed to reflect the same rule articulated in Henkel . On appeal to the California Supreme Court, Fluor argued against both propositions.
In a unanimous decision written by the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court agreed with Fluor on both issues. The Court, applying section 520, found that the statute applies to third party liability insurance, and that, properly construed in light of its relevant language and history, section 520 bars an insurer from refusing to honor an insured's assignment of policy coverage regarding injuries that predate the assignment. The Court concluded that "It follows that the decision in Henkel, which assessed the proper application of a consent-to-assignment clause under common law principles, cannot stand in view of the contrary dictates of the controlling statutory provisions of section 520." (Slip Op. at 3.)
The Court concluded:
As further explained below, the rule embodied in section 520 is consistent with the overwhelming majority of cases decided before and since Henkel. The principle reflected in those cases — precluding an insurer, after a loss has occurred, from refusing to honor an insured's assignment of the right to invoke policy coverage for such a loss — has been described as a venerable one, borne of experience and practice, facilitating the productive transformation of corporate entities, and thereby fostering economic activity. ( Id .)
In short, after the Fluor decision the law in California is that courts will not enforce anti-assignment provisions in liability insurance policies after the loss has occurred. With regard to standard occurrence-based liability policies, the "loss" is the coverage-triggering event, such as "property damage" or "bodily injury," and not the finding of liability.
by Hall and Evans | Feb 23, 2021
The case arose out of an auto accident in which Ms. Goddard and two others were injured. The driver, Mr. Griggs, was insured under an auto policy issued by State Farm. The policy afforded $25,000 per person, $50,000 aggregate limits. Goddard and the two others all asserted claims against Griggs. Prior to litigation, Goddard’s counsel sent State Farm a letter with a time-limited demand for the policy’s limits; the letter documented $2,410 in medical expenses, noting that the hospital charges remained pending, and claiming loss of income of $141.60. The demand did not claim any future medical care was needed. The demand imposed a time limit for acceptance. Prior to the deadline, State Farm offered $5,000; Goddard did not respond to the offer. She later provided documentation of additional treatment, including neurological evaluation and psychotherapy. At that point, State Farm had settled the other two claims and offered her the remaining limits of $18,500. Again, Goddard did not respond to the offer but pursued litigation against Griggs.
State Farm defended Griggs. Goddard informed Griggs that she was not willing to settle for the remaining limits but offered to enter into a Nunn agreement. She later amended her complaint to add a claim for punitive damages and some months after that the parties entered into a Nunn agreement whereby Griggs admitted liability for the accident, agreed to arbitrate Goddard’s damages, and assigned all contract and extracontractual claims he had against State Farm to Goddard. Goddard agreed not to execute or enforce the judgment against Griggs’ assets. State Farm did not consent to the agreement. The parties then arbitrated the damages and State Farm continued to provide Griggs a defense; the arbitration award was for $837,193.36.
After the arbitration award was entered State Farm filed a declaratory judgment action asserting that Griggs breached the policy by, among other things, entering into the Nunn agreement. Goddard, as assignee, counterclaimed and asserted a bad faith claim against State Farm for failure to settle within the policy limits. The case was tried and the jury found in favor of State Farm, determining that Griggs breached the contract and that Goddard failed to prove State Farm acted in bad faith.
The Goddard decision clarifies when an insured may enter into an enforceable Nunn agreement. The decision rejects the proposition that such agreements can never, as a matter of law, constitute a breach of the insured’s duties under the policy. The decision also explains that each of these issues entail fact questions for juries to decide.
The decision clarifies that “before an insured is justified in stipulating to a judgment and assigning its claims against the insurer to a third-party claimant, it must first appear that the insurer has unreasonably refused to defend the insured or to settle the claim within policy limits.” The court distinguished this standard – when an insured may enter into an assignment – from when such an agreement is enforceable against the insurer. Colorado law requires a finding that the insurer acted in bad faith before such agreements are enforceable against it as the measure of damages for its bad faith. But the court held this was too harsh a standard to impose on insureds when entering a Nunn agreement; insureds need only establish that the insurer appeared to act unreasonably in denying a defense or rejecting a policy limits demand. The court observed that “it is conceivable that an insurer may appear to have acted unreasonably in rejecting a policy-limits offer, but not actually acted unreasonably in settling the claim. Under that scenario, the insured would not have breached the insurance contract and the insurer would not have acted in bad faith.”
Goddard urged that, because the Colorado Supreme Court expressly recognizes insureds may protect themselves by utilizing such assignments, entry into such an agreement can never, as a matter of law, constitute a breach of the insured’s duties under an insurance policy. The court rejected this proposition emphasizing that Griggs was entitled to enter into the assignment only if it appeared State Farm unreasonably rejected the offer. Whether State Farm’s actions were reasonable, and whether it appeared that its actions were unreasonable, were fact questions for the jury. The court upheld the jury’s verdict that Griggs breached the policy.
If you would like further details of the case and its implications, please contact Stephanie A. Montague, [email protected] , 303.628.3494.
Click to view a PDF of this article .
FILE - Supporters of President Donald Trump hold signs as they stand outside of the Clark County Elections Department in North Las Vegas,Nov. 7, 2020. As former President Donald Trump makes a comeback bid to return to power, Republicans in Congress have become even more likely to cast doubts on President Joe Biden’s 2020 victory.(AP Photo/Wong Maye-E, File)
FILE - Rioters loyal to President Donald Trump rally at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. As Trump makes a comeback bid to return to power, Republicans in Congress have become even more likely to cast doubts on President Joe Biden’s 2020 victory. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
WASHINGTON (AP) — In the hours after the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 , Ohio’s then-Republican senator, Rob Portman, voted to accept President Joe Biden’s win over the defeated former president, Donald Trump , despite Trump’s false allegations that Biden only won because of fraud.
But as Trump charges toward his rematch with Biden in 2024 , Portman has been replaced by Sen. JD Vance , a potential vice presidential pick who has echoed Trump’s false claims of fraud and said he’ll accept the results this fall only “if it’s a free and fair election.”
South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, other possible VP picks , also declined to object to Biden’s victory over Trump, but have been less committal this year. Rubio said recently if “things are wrong” with November’s election, Republicans won’t stand by and accept the outcome.
And the new speaker of the House, Mike Johnson , helped organize Trump’s failed legal challenge to Biden’s win. He demurred when asked if he believed the 2020 election was legitimate during an event with other Trump allies about the upcoming election.
As Trump makes a comeback bid to return to power, Republicans in Congress have become even more likely to cast doubts on Biden’s victory or deny it was legitimate, a political turnaround that allows his false claims of fraud to linger and lays the groundwork to potentially challenge the results in 2024.
A new report released Tuesday by States United Action, a group that tracks election deniers, said nearly one-third of the lawmakers in Congress supported in some way Trump’s bid to overturn the 2020 results or otherwise cast doubt on the reliability of elections. Several more are hoping to join them, running for election this year to the House and Senate.
“The public should have a real healthy dose of concern about the real risk of having people in power who’ve shown they’re not willing to respect the will of the people,” said Lizzie Ulmer of States United Action.
The issue is particularly stark for Congress given its constitutional role as the final arbiter of the validity of a presidential election. It counts the results from the Electoral College, as it set out to do on Jan. 6, 2021, a date now etched in history because of the violent assault on the U.S. Capitol by a pro-Trump mob.
In its report, States United found that in Congress, 170 representatives and senators out of 535 lawmakers overall can be categorized as election deniers. Heading into the fall elections, two new Senate candidates and 17 new House candidates already are on the ballot this fall seeking to join them.
It’s not just Congress that has been seeded with people who supported trying to overturn Trump’s 2020 loss, but the highest ranks of the Republican Party .
“This is deeply alarming,” said Wendy Weiser, the vice president for democracy programs at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. “A democracy can only function if the participants commit to accepting the results of popular elections. That is it. That’s the entire political system.”
The former president picked Michael Whatley , who has echoed Trump’s election lies , to become co-chairman of the Republican National Committee, with his daughter-in-law, Lara Trump. Christina Bobb, who was recently indicted for her alleged involvement in a scheme to recruit fake electors in Arizona, has been named the RNC’s head of “election integrity.”
What to know about the 2024 Election
Under Trump’s direction, the RNC is making the elections process its top priority, bringing in the new personnel and adding resources, said Danielle Alvarez, an adviser to both the Trump campaign and the party committee.
Rioters loyal to President Donald Trump rally at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
“Biden is in the White House, that’s true,” Alvarez said, “but there were issues in the election.”
To be clear, there was no widespread fraud in the 2020 election that cost Trump reelection. Recounts , audits and reviews in the battleground states where he contested his loss all affirmed Biden’s victory, and courts rejected dozens of lawsuits filed by Trump and his allies.
States United’s report details how successful election deniers have been in bolstering their congressional ranks. It examines the results of congressional party primaries in the 13 states that have held them this year and found that in each state, at least one election denier has made it to the general election for a House or Senate seat.
The report defines election deniers as people who falsely claimed Trump won in 2020, spread misinformation about that election or took steps to overturn it, or refused to concede a separate race. It finds that at least 67 will be on the ballot in the House in November, including 50 incumbents. Three will be running for the Senate — one of whom, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, is an incumbent.
There have been high-profile losses among election deniers, as well. Last week in West Virginia, Republican Rep. Carol Miller, who also voted against accepting Biden’s victory, successfully fended off a primary challenge from Derrick Evans, who was convicted of a felony civil disorder charge after storming the Capitol on Jan. 6. Numerous election deniers in 2022 lost bids for swing state offices such as governor or secretary of state that would have given them direct power over voting in 2024.
Still, the movement has grown by dominating Republican primaries. In the race for the nomination to challenge Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown in Ohio, businessman Bernie Moreno, who has previously said Trump was “right” to call 2020 “stolen,” won his primary . In Indiana, Republican Sen. Mike Braun voted to certify Biden’s win, but he will step down this year to run for governor and is poised to be replaced by Rep. Jim Banks, a prominent election denier who easily won the GOP primary in that state.
The report classifies neither Rubio or Scott as election deniers, but skepticism about the trustworthiness of voting has become an organizing GOP principle, particularly for the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
Before becoming the House speaker, Johnson recruited colleagues to support a lawsuit, which ultimately failed, filed by Trump’s allies to overturn his 2020 loss.
More recently Johnson met with Trump at the former president’s Mar-a-Lago resort to shore up his own political support amid a far-right rebellion seeking to oust him as speaker . He emerged promising House legislation that would be designed to stop immigrants in the country illegally from voting.
During a press conference on the Capitol steps to announce the bill, the speaker acknowledged it’s hard to prove that certain immigrants are wrongfully casting ballots. Election experts say it is extremely rare for immigrants who are ineligible to vote to break federal law to do so.
While Congress passed legislation putting in safeguards to better protect against interference after the Capitol attack, it’s lawmakers who will ultimately be asked to accept the 2024 results from their states.
Vance stood by his recent remarks. And Rubio said he expects there will be lawsuits in jurisdictions where the final tallies are close, as sometimes happens.
“When people ask me, ‘Are you going to accept the outcome?’ I think what some people are arguing is if there’s things wrong with this election, we’re going to point it out,” Rubio said in a short interview.
Riccardi reported from Denver.
This story has been corrected to fix the spelling of the last name of the States United spokeswoman, Lizzie Ulmer.
We’re sorry, this feature is currently unavailable. We’re working to restore it. Please try again later.
By eryk bagshaw and angus thomson, save articles for later.
Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.
One of the state’s key taxpayer-funded medical councils is in chaos amid allegations of staff being digitally tracked, a rugby league sponsorship backflip, nepotism and critical delivery failures in some of Australia’s most disadvantaged communities.
The Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council of NSW (AHMRC) has gone through four chief executives in less than two years and now faces allegations that it fostered a toxic workplace and delivered contracts to friends and family far above their market rate.
The peak body, which represents Aboriginal community-controlled health services in NSW, receives $11 million a year in taxpayer funding from the state and federal government.
NSW Premier Chris Minns at the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council training centre in Sydney’s Little Bay in June 2023. Credit: Edwina Pickles
In announcing $1.5 million in fresh funding at its new Sydney training centre last year, Premier Chris Minns said health workers trained at the AHMRC would go on to treat tens of thousands of patients across NSW.
“Aboriginal-controlled health services are helping people across our state,” he said.
But six current and former staff members say the AHMRC is failing in its mission to improve the lives of thousands of Indigenous people living in NSW.
Nicole Turner, the peak body’s fourth chief executive in two years, has called in a third set of auditors after two recent inquiries by Catalina Consultants and Workwize investigated potential conflicts of interest and allegations of staff tracking. Workwize concluded further investigations were necessary. Investigators from PwC are now looking into the culture, governance and finances of the council.
Staff have raised concerns about a number of transactions, including a mystery $22,000 fee paid to rent a room in Dubbo, the collapse of a proposed $27,000 rugby league sponsorship that did not have board approval and a catering contract below market rate.
“Everything that we spend has to be linked to some program, whether it’s mental or sexual health, but we’re not able to justify it,” said one former staff member.
“The ripple effect will be happening down to the community. We’re not able to deliver because we are too stuck within our office trying to sort out the mess.”
AHMRC chair Jamie Newman said the board had appointed Turner as interim chief executive “to review and action any necessary changes following recent instability”.
Charlie Coyle, an accountant working remotely from Palm Beach in Queensland, has been stood down on paid leave from his role as the AHMRC’s head of finance while the investigation into the organisation unfolds.
Charlie Coyle, the director of finance at the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council. Credit: Nathan Perri
Six current and former staff members who requested anonymity to discuss internal issues say the day-to-day operations of the NSW council were effectively taken over by Coyle.
Coyle denied wrongdoing but declined to answer questions about how he managed conflicts of interest, handled invoices and implemented a staff tracking system. He said he was “just an employee”.
In April, lawyers from Williamson Barwick recommended further investigation into Coyle’s “compliance with AHMRC’s Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest policies” – particularly in relation to his involvement in signing contracts and handling the invoices of both the council’s original auditor and a catering company.
Documents show Coyle’s signature on a deal giving Urban Cooking Collective access to the council’s taxpayer-funded commercial cooking facilities in Little Bay, NSW, for $500 a month. Other cooking facilities in Sydney are rented for at least $750 per week.
Three staff members said Coyle was open about his personal connection to the owner of the catering company.
“Why would we be paying all of the utilities, water, electricity and cleaning?” said one current staff member who asked not to be identified to protect their employment.
The company was allegedly also given preferential tendering for catering AHMRC events, charging the council $49 per student per day.
“If we were having a meeting for six head count we’d get an invoice for $600 for sandwiches,” said one former staff member.
In another instance, the AHMRC paid a mystery invoice containing sparse details about an office room that was rented at the Bila Muuji Aboriginal Medical Centre in Dubbo for $22,000. Coyle also ran the finance for Bila Muuji centre, though it is not suggested he profited from the deal. It is run by a family member of former AHMRC chair Phil Naden.
Naden said he was not affiliated with Bila Muuji and all declarations of conflicts of interest were made at the time. Bila Muuji also used the same auditor as AHMRC.
Documents show AHMRC’s auditor was paid by Coyle within minutes of submitting a $27,500 invoice in August 2023, while staff say there were often delays paying teachers and other essential service providers.
A third investigator is now reviewing the conflict management procedures that were followed to identify any governance issues and is yet to make any findings.
In March 2024, the Arthur Beetson Foundation claimed Naden told them in person that the AHMRC NSW would spend $27,500 in taxpayer funding sponsoring a rugby league game at Redcliffe Dolphins in Queensland. The foundation, which promotes Indigenous football, said the offer was verbally confirmed four days later.
After the event went ahead, the AHMRC claimed Naden did not have board approval, leaving the foundation chasing thousands of dollars.
“We now find ourselves in a financial hole as the event was cash neutral event given we spent all funds we had committed on the event,” the foundation wrote to the AHMRC.
Naden denied committing the funding to the charity and said he had no contact with them during his tenure as chairman.
The expenses inflamed tensions within the peak body as staff struggled with what some called a toxic work environment that has seen at least eight staff resign or go on WorkCover since 2022.
“It’s a very colourful office,” one former staff member said of the council’s headquarters on Pitt Street in Sydney’s CBD.
In 2022 staff were asked to log into an app that would track their location by GPS raising questions about “whether these actions complied with the Workplace Surveillance Act” according to an internal review of an auditors report.
“[Coyle] pretty much controlled everything,” said one current staff member. “He is a non-Aboriginal male. He just didn’t really understand the impacts of that.”
In a letter to Coyle on the outcome of its investigation in December 2023, Catalina Consultants said it had determined the AHMRC should remove “geo-location tracking” from its systems and that Coyle “displayed behaviours that go against workplace standards under Safe Work NSW’s Code of Practice for Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work”.
Coyle also clashed with then-chief executive Boe Rambaldini, who was appointed to the job in July last year but lasted less than two months.
Rambaldini filed an unfair dismissal case against his former employer, which was settled in the Federal Court earlier this month.
In documents filed to the court, Rambaldini alleged he was dismissed after raising concerns about a number of financial management issues, including that some employees were not being paid their correct wages. He said others who had left the organisation still had access to its Westpac bank accounts.
Rambaldini sent Naden a report detailing his concerns on the morning of September 15, according to the statement of claim. An hour later, he said he received an email from Naden terminating his employment for “serious misconduct”.
In a letter sent to members earlier this year, Rambaldini said he was “not alone in having suffered as a result of the poor governance and decision-making”.
“Our communities have an undeniable right to have a say in how to address this chaos,” he said.
In its defence, the council said Rambaldini was dismissed after management became aware he had approved two loans to his executive assistant without authority from the board. It denied his dismissal was related to the concerns he had raised with Naden.
Following the settlement, the peak body’s board said it “regrets the circumstances which led to Boe’s employment coming to an end” and acknowledged Rambaldini’s “commitment and service over many decades to Aboriginal people”.
Rambaldini was replaced by 26-year-old Shana Quayle, who had a series of convictions for stalking, assaults on workers, and damaging property between 2019 and 2023. Her tenure as acting chief executive lasted six months.
“She just didn’t have this skill set to be a CEO of a multimillion-dollar organisation and that showed,” said one former board member. Quayle declined to comment.
Naden denied the leadership turmoil had affected the council’s ability to deliver services to regional communities.
“There’s been no instability around the CEO, because all it is is someone acting in the capacity until we fill the position,” he said.
Quayle was replaced by current interim chief executive Nicole Turner, who reported to a board that had a turnover of 24 directors in four years.
Turner said she was committed to ensuring the organisation was “best placed to support our member services and the broader sector, with the strength that our long history and legacy demands”.
In a statement, the AHMRC board said it was in “the process of understanding historical challenges within our organisation, and in partnership, are addressing them appropriately to ensure our organisation’s stability into the future”.
As a member of the coalition of Aboriginal peak bodies, the council has shared accountability with state and federal governments for meeting the targets of the 2020 Closing the Gap agreement.
In figures released earlier this month, the Productivity Commission revealed the country will fall short of its goal of closing the gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians by 2031.
Maari Ma Health Aboriginal Corporation chief executive, Richard Weston. Credit: Rhett Wyman
Richard Weston, chief executive of Maari Ma Health Aboriginal Corporation in Broken Hill, said it was frustrating to see his peak body mired in court battles and financial mismanagement instead of advocating for more resources and better support for services on the ground.
“They [Indigenous health workers] come with this love for what they’re doing, and our leadership doesn’t honour it,” he said.
“I don’t think our leaders know how to be leaders.”
Brendon Adams, a Ku-ku Yalangii and Woppaburra man living in Wilcannia in western NSW, said his type 2 diabetes would be impossible to manage without Maari Ma. The closest dialysis centre is a four-hour round trip away in Broken Hill.
“Wilcannia suffered from a lot of people coming into this community with promises … and they leave and then they never come back,” Adams said.
Wilcannia community leader Brendon Adams. Credit: Rhett Wyman
AHMRC member services and staff at the peak body say its purpose is crucial, but those running it have lost sight of their mission – to improve the health of Indigenous people across NSW.
“If it completely shuts down, it will have a huge impact on the community, and it will be a disaster,” said one former staff member.
Another staff member, who regularly visits member services across NSW, said many had lost faith in their peak body.
“People ask, ‘what is going on at the AHMRC?’ There is absolutely no confidence in those of us that are visiting these services,” the staff member said. “They don’t even take us seriously.”
Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter .
IMAGES
COMMENTS
32.802 Conditions. Under the Assignment of Claims Act, a contractor may assign moneys due or to become due under a contract if all the following conditions are met: (a) The contract specifies payments aggregating $1,000 or more. (b) The assignment is made to a bank, trust company, or other financing institution, including any Federal lending ...
An assignment of a legal claim occurs when one party (the "assignor" ) transfers its rights in a cause of action to another party (the "assignee" ). 1. The Supreme Court has held that a private litigant may have standing to sue to redress an injury to another party when the injured party has assigned at least a portion of its claim for ...
A large class of plaintiffs engages you to bring a common action against a defendant or set of defendants. As counsel, you resolve to combine the plaintiffs' various claims into a single lawsuit. In this article, we touch on some of the traditional approaches, such as a class action, joinder, consolidation, relation, and coordination. To that list, we add as an approach the assignment of ...
31 U.S. Code § 3727 - Assignments of claims. a transfer or assignment of any part of a claim against the United States Government or of an interest in the claim; or. the authorization to receive payment for any part of the claim. An assignment may be made only after a claim is allowed, the amount of the claim is decided, and a warrant for ...
Germany - FW The assignment of claims to a third party for the purpose of their recovery is allowed without further ado, if the assignee bears the full financial risk of recovering the claims and acts for his own account (e.g. factoring). If an assignee collects debts for the account of the assignor and if the debt collection is conducted as a stand-alone business, this is considered a ...
Understanding the Assignment of Claims The assignment of claims is a critical concept in the financial world, particularly in the realm of contract law. It is a process that involves the transfer of rights held by one party, the assignor, to another party, the assignee. This article delves into the intricacies of the assignment of claims, its implications, and its role in various sectors.
Contract AdministrationActivity 39: Assignme. Procedures covering the assignment of claims. Chart 39TasksFAR Reference(s)Additional Info. ionDetermine if assignment of claims is per. FAR 32.802 Conditions [assignment of claims]. er a contract if all of the following conditions are met:T. contract specifies payments aggregating $1,000 or more ...
Law Principle III.2 - Assignment of claim. Access 145 references, 109 contract clauses, and a commentary.
A. Background Paragraph (e) of the clause at FAR 52.232-36, Payment by Third Party, states that a contractor may not assign its rights to receive payment under the assignment of claims terms of the contract if payment is made by a third party ( e.g., use of the Governmentwide commercial purchase card).
On September 15, 2016, the New York Appellate Division, First Department, issued a decision addressing the foregoing principles holding that one of the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert claims because the assignment of the right to pursue remedies did not constitute the assignment of claims.
When entering into an assignment agreement, it is important that both the third-party claimant (the assignee) and the insured (the assignor) have an understanding about whether the non-assigned claims for emotional distress and/or punitive damages will be pursued. This is to avoid an improper "splitting" of the bad-faith cause of action.
Third Parties and Assignments. Ordinarily, only the parties to contracts have rights and duties with respect to the contracts. However, exceptions are made in the case of third-party beneficiary contracts and assignments. When a contract is intended to benefit a third person, this person is a third-party beneficiary and may enforce the contract.
The third-party effects of an assignment of claims refer in general to the following questions: (i) which requirements must be fulfilled by the assignee in order to ensure that the assignee acquires legal title over the claim after the assignment (for example, registration of the assignment in a public register, written notification of the ...
Because that claim belonged to Entitle, as the party actually harmed by the failed merger (as opposed to its individual shareholders), Partner Re obtained an assignment from Entitle when the merger with the third party closed that "assign [ed] to Partner Re the exclusive right to pursue any claims [Entitle] may have in respect of [the failed ...
An alignment of the main rule of the draft Regulation with the equivalent rule in the Convention could result in an internationally uniform conflict-of-laws rule on this matter, which would remove the legal divergences existing among legal systems and reduce the uncertainty as to the law applicable to the third-party effects of assignments of ...
Commission report on the question of the effectiveness of an assignment or subrogation of a claim against third parties and the priority of the assigned or subrogated claim over the right of another person. The European Commission proposes to harmonise conflict of laws rules on the third-party effects of assignment of claims.
The assignment of a claim refers to a situation where a creditor (the assignor) transfers the right to claim a debt from the debtor to another person (the assignee) who then becomes a creditor vis-a-vis the debtor (replacing in this role the original creditor). This mechanism is used by companies to obtain liquidity and access credit.
An assignment of a legal claim occurs when one party (the assignor) transfers its rights in a cause of action to another party (the assignee ). 1. The Supreme Court has held that a private litigant may have standing to sue to redress an injury to another party when the injured party has assigned at least a portion of its claim for damages from ...
The Court, applying section 520, found that the statute applies to third party liability insurance, and that, properly construed in light of its relevant language and history, section 520 bars an insurer from refusing to honor an insured's assignment of policy coverage regarding injuries that predate the assignment.
Colorado has long recognized an insured's right to protect him or herself by assigning their claims against insurers when the insurer refuses to defend or settle a third-party claim. The parameters of exactly when an insured may enter into an assignment (referred to as Nunn agreements), and what defenses may be available to the insurer, […]
Sample Clauses. Assignment of Third Party Claims. In consideration of the covenants contained herein and payment by Purchaser of the Purchase Price, Seller shall be deemed to have conveyed to Purchaser at Closing Seller's interest in any claims and causes of action Seller may have against third parties (other than Purchaser or any tenant of ...
Assignment of Third Party Claims; Cooperation. Mr. Edson hereby assigns and transfers to the Company all rights he xxx xxxxnst Larry Gordon, Lexington Ventures, Inc., Jack Myers, J.G. Myers & Xx., Xxxx Xxreet Consulting Corp. (and its xxxxxxxxes), Xxxxxxl Brennan, and any former director or officer of the Compaxx (xxx "Xxxxxxxal Defendants") arising from Mr. Edson's purchase of the Securities ...
Assignment; No Third Party Beneficiaries 5.2.1 This Agreement and the rights, duties and obligations of the Company hereunder may not be assigned or delegated by the Company in whole or in part. Indemnification; Third Party Claims (a) The Special Servicer and any Affiliate, director, officer, employee, member, manager or agent of the Special ...
Can't access your account? Terms of use Privacy & cookies... Privacy & cookies...
The party failed to nominate many of its candidates in time - but it now claims the NSW Electoral Commission was at fault and it will go to court to prove it.
A new report released by States United Action said nearly one-third of the lawmakers in Congress supported in some way Trump's bid to overturn the 2020 results or otherwise cast doubt on the reliability of elections.
A taxpayer-funded medical council faces allegations of tracking its staff, nepotism and reneging on sponsorship commitments.