OneVue to commence legal proceedings against China-Taiping
OneVue subsidiary, Diversa, and receivers for SC Australian Holdings 1 are commencing legal proceedings against China-Taiping in the Federal Court of Australia to seek orders and declaratory relief.
In an announcement to the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), OneVue said it had been unable to reach an agreement with China-Taiping on its asserted security interest over the Madison Financial Group and Sequoia Financial Group sale proceeds realised by receivers of SC Australian Holdings 1, and payment of the receivers’ costs from the Madison sale proceeds.
The orders and declaratory relief sought included:
- Diversa (and not China-Taiping) holds a first ranking security over the Madison sale proceeds and Diversa was entitled to payment of the Madison sale proceeds;
- The receivers’ costs of realising Madison would be paid from the Madison sale proceeds;
- China-Taiping did not hold any security over the Sequoia sale proceeds realised by the receivers for Diversa’s benefit; and
- China-Taiping was to pay Diversa’s legal costs in the proceedings.
OneVue noted that it considered it necessary to commence court proceedings to resolve the dispute and finalise the realisation of the Madison and Sequoia proceeds.
“OneVue’s potential recovery (in any) in respect of Madison and Sequoia will depend on the court’s determination of the issues of fact and law relevant to the determination of Diversa’s and China Taiping competing claims to the sale proceeds,” the announcement said.
OneVue is in the process of being acquired by Iress that has launched an equity raising for the acquisition.
Recommended for you
ASIC has released the results of its first adviser exam to be held in 2025, with 241 candidates attempting the test.
Quarterly Wealth Data analysis has uncovered positive improvements in financial adviser numbers compared with losses in the prior corresponding period.
Holding portfolios that are too complex or personalised can be a detractor for acquirers of financial advice firms as they require too much effort to maintain post-acquisition.
As the financial advice profession continues to wait on further DBFO legislation, industry commentators have encouraged advisers to act now in driving practice efficiency.
