Browsing by Author "Dibley, Tom"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4

Restricted
An Analysis of the Private Trust as a Post-Settlement Governance Entity
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2012) Dibley, Tom
This paper examines the suitability of the trust structure as a post-settlement governance entity for Māori to use to manage their assets following the settlement of historic Treaty of Waitangi grievances with the Crown. The Law Commission, in a series of three papers and reports had criticised the suitability of the trust as a post-settlement governance entity, the examination in the paper concludes, however, that the trust structure is able to fulfil such a role as its underlying structure is culturally matched to Māori governance ways. The paper also finds that Crown policy in regard to matters such as democracy limits the full potential of the trust structure and that the dispute resolution jurisdiction for post-settlement governance entities could usefully be transferred to the Māori Land Court.
Restricted
Council Controlled Organisations: A Search for Accountability
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2010) Dibley, Tom
This paper outlines the background and history of council controlled organisations (CCOs) and the motivations that drive a local authority to use a CCO as a method of delivering a local activity. The paper focuses on the importance of the accountability structure for CCOs and in doing so address the fundamental tensions that exist in the internally competing principal objective of a CCO and the approach that Parliament and the judiciary have taken to accountability for CCO action; finding that what little evidence is available indicates accountability is not being delivered through these avenues. The paper also considers the legislative reforms that are proposed by the current Government under the Local Government 2002 Amendment Bill 2010 and the impact that these may have on local democracy and the use and establishment of CCOs.
Restricted
The Prohibition on Target Company Defensive Tactics in Takeover Situations: A Critical Examination and Options for Change
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2012) Dibley, Tom
This paper examines the position of takeover defenses in the New Zealand context. Rule 38 of the Takeovers Code prohibits target company directors from deploying takeover defenses. An assessment of the origins of takeover law in New Zealand, drawing on overseas experience, indicates that there was little evidence that a prohibition on defensive tactics was necessary. The paper then examines the likely position of target company shareholders if there was no prohibition on defensive tactics, finding a combination of company law and the approach the courts are likely to take to the issue would leave few defensive tactics open to target company directors. Assessment of the relative merits of the general courts and the Takeovers Panel as the mode of regulation is undertaken, which concludes that the Panel would be the most appropriate place for takeover defenses to be considered. Taking this hypothetical situation a step further, the paper concludes that the Panel would likely use its guidance and determinative powers to effectively prohibit takeover defenses.
Restricted
The Short Unhappy Life of Section 92 of the Copyright Act 1994, As (Was) To Be Inserted by Clause 53 of the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2011) Dibley, Tom
The Government’s first attempt to regulate to make Internet Service Providers adopt and enforce a policy for the termination of the accounts of internet users who repeatedly infringe copyright was a failure. The policy development process undertaken did not examine the issue and when provision was made in an amending Bill for a termination of accounts clause it lead to its removal by a Select Committee before reintroduction into the Bill by Supplementary Order Paper at a later stage. The fact that the reintroduced provision did not address the concerns of the submitters meant that the legislation itself was destined to fail before it was bought into force.