I Am A Member? But Really I Am A Shareholder?

[jackc]

The subject says it all, which being a Shareholder in RAAus which involves potential financial liability, that bothers me?

I would like to be proven wrong?  Given a few occurrences of recent times, concerning legal actions, Coronial Investigations, alleged possible improprieties etc, with potentially disastrous financial outcomes.  
This could place me in a financially vulnerable position, personally? IF legal actions go horribly wrong for RAAus, and there is a massive financial claim against  RAAus?  After all Directors Guarantees are financially  exhausted, then shareholders can become financially liable? Under our current RAAus structure? 

Yes, there is insurance but that can become null and void, if impropriety is discovered and I would allege that cover ups to a Coronial Enquiry could form part of that, in one case?  
Yes, conversations with people by phone have made me aware of these possibilities, so therefore I put it to the Forum for comment. 
Any written evidence to the contrary, would help erase any fears about what I have stated above?

 

 

 

[pmccarthy]

In any Limited company, your liability is limited to the amount you have agreed to pay for your shares. RAAus is a Company Limited by Guarantee. You have no personal liability.

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, jackc said:

The subject says it all, which being a Shareholder in RAAus which involves potential financial liability, that bothers me?

I would like to be proven wrong?  Given a few occurrences of recent times, concerning legal actions, Coronial Investigations, alleged possible improprieties etc, with potentially disastrous financial outcomes.  
This could place me in a financially vulnerable position, personally? IF legal actions go horribly wrong for RAAus, and there is a massive financial claim against  RAAus?  After all Directors Guarantees are financially  exhausted, then shareholders can become financially liable? Under our current RAAus structure? 

Yes, there is insurance but that can become null and void, if impropriety is discovered and I would allege that cover ups to a Coronial Enquiry could form part of that, in one case?  
Yes, conversations with people by phone have made me aware of these possibilities, so therefore I put it to the Forum for comment. 
Any written evidence to the contrary, would help erase any fears about what I have stated above?

 

 

 

Talk to a Public Liability lawyer to see what separations, if any, there might be between the company and you in the scenarios you raise.

[turboplanner]

4 hours ago, jackc said:

I would like to be proven wrong?  Given a few occurrences of recent times, concerning legal actions, Coronial Investigations, alleged possible improprieties etc, with potentially disastrous financial outcomes. 

And for this case you're interested in check the Austlii website to see if it's on the site yet, because that will include the decision and details

[facthunter]

It's dead easy to pull up the RAAus constitution and examine it. I have just done so. .  Nev

[jackc]

No one can get minutes of any meetings in print, to see what has gone through any of those meetings, UNLESS they attend the registered  office of the organisation and VIEW any minutes requested. 
 

[turboplanner]

14 minutes ago, jackc said:

No one can get minutes of any meetings in print, to see what has gone through any of those meetings, UNLESS they attend the registered  office of the organisation and VIEW any minutes requested. 
 

We could get them in the Incorporated Association days which is why we had a lot more discussions on actual issues which were happening. Not so sure with the arms length limited company, except perhaps attending the AGM as a shareholder and asking a string of questions.

[facthunter]

Records of the minutes  must be retained by LAW, but it's very inhibiting to make them ALL public. It's not hard to envision  the problems. Your liability as a  member seems to be limited to ONE Dollar. OFFICE bearers have a greater exposure to risk and they have to be covered also. It's also a non profit Organisation, which is interesting.  Nev

[jackc]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

Records of the minutes  must be retained by LAW, but it's very inhibiting to make them ALL public. It's not hard to envision  the problems. Your liability as a  member seems to be limited to ONE Dollar. OFFICE bearers have a greater exposure to risk and they have to be covered also. It's also a non profit Organisation, which is interesting.  Nev

I thinks it’s a case, the answer will only be found IF the wings fall off…….

[Keith Page]

On 06/02/2025 at 5:45 AM, jackc said:

The subject says it all, which being a Shareholder in RAAus which involves potential financial liability, that bothers me?

I would like to be proven wrong?  Given a few occurrences of recent times, concerning legal actions, Coronial Investigations, alleged possible improprieties etc, with potentially disastrous financial outcomes.  
This could place me in a financially vulnerable position, personally? IF legal actions go horribly wrong for RAAus, and there is a massive financial claim against  RAAus?  After all Directors Guarantees are financially  exhausted, then shareholders can become financially liable? Under our current RAAus structure? 

Yes, there is insurance but that can become null and void, if impropriety is discovered and I would allege that cover ups to a Coronial Enquiry could form part of that, in one case?  
Yes, conversations with people by phone have made me aware of these possibilities, so therefore I put it to the Forum for comment. 
Any written evidence to the contrary, would help erase any fears about what I have stated above?

 

I have just been made aware of the shambles, yes is a bit of a concern.

I wonder what the next move will be.

 

 

[jackc]

Apart from the current investigation, there are another two investigations to run and apparently false information was given in one of those also, so unfortunately it’s not looking very good at RAA , considering there will be civil actions against them as well that have been somewhat detailed already.

Understand that as a result of cover-ups there will probably be NO insurance coverage for RAA,  under the terms and conditions of the PDS which outlines the insurance companies terms and conditions of that  policy. 
Just  imagine if I personally tried to cover up something in an RAA investigation with my own aircraft, and what the results could be from that.

I’m sure. that I would pay a price for it. 
There are sad days ahead……..

[turboplanner]

25 minutes ago, jackc said:

Apart from the current investigation, there are another two investigations to run and apparently false information was given in one of those also, so unfortunately it’s not looking very good at RAA , considering there will be civil actions against them as well that have been somewhat detailed already.

Understand that as a result of cover-ups there will probably be NO insurance coverage for RAA,  under the terms and conditions of the PDS which outlines the insurance companies terms and conditions of that  policy. 
Just  imagine if I personally tried to cover up something in an RAA investigation with my own aircraft, and what the results could be from that.

I’m sure. that I would pay a price for it. 
There are sad days ahead……..

There are two potential stages here; what you are talking about  is the Coronial Hearing outcome and from news media I understand this has been referred to the DPP for handling and possible prosecution in which case there will be more legal costs.

 

The potential second stage is whether there will be a legal claim by the PL Law Firm previously mentioned.

That may involve a lot more legal costs and possible payout, or a Settlement; you are correct.

 

[facthunter]

IF CASA let RAAus go down the drain who will replace them and don't CASA have an ongoing  responsibility to monitor their performance?  I've always  believed the Potential Liability  is too large to be carried by such an organisation. The CASA has the  ULTIMATE responsibility here and I don't believe  they can "conveniently" contract out of it. IF the members are  have a liability beyond the $1 Then THEY should have been made aware of it long ago. Nev

[turboplanner]

16 minutes ago, facthunter said:

IF CASA let RAAus go down the drain who will replace them and don't CASA have an ongoing  responsibility to monitor their performance?  I've always  believed the Potential Liability  is too large to be carried by such an organisation. The CASA has the  ULTIMATE responsibility here and I don't believe  they can "conveniently" contract out of it. IF the members are  have a liability beyond the $1 Then THEY should have been made aware of it long ago. Nev

What's CASA got to do with it?

RAA Ltd is a self administering organisation at arm's length from CASA.

Since the members closed down RAA Inc (btw with its PL protection to suite the changes around 1985), we haven't been seeing the Annual agreements from CASA to RAA and the responsibilities spelled out but there are old ones on this site.

 

It's way too early ($400,000 lawyers' fees divided by 10,000 members is $40.00/member so far) to predict the end, but there's nothing to stop the members making a decision to form a new administering body.

[BrendAn]

13 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

What's CASA got to do with it?

RAA Ltd is a self administering organisation at arm's length from CASA.

Since the members closed down RAA Inc (btw with its PL protection to suite the changes around 1985), we haven't been seeing the Annual agreements from CASA to RAA and the responsibilities spelled out but there are old ones on this site.

 

It's way too early ($400,000 lawyers' fees divided by 10,000 members is $40.00/member so far) to predict the end, but there's nothing to stop the members making a decision to form a new administering body.

 casa oversee everything raaus do.  i have been told that several times by raaus staff.

[facthunter]

Turbo runs this line constantly but clearly there is a lingering problem that at some time must be addressed..  Nev

[turboplanner]

2 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Turbo runs this line constantly but clearly there is a lingering problem that at some time must be addressed..  Nev

I'm not running any line. You can't keep living in the past.  The CASA - RAA Inc. Agreements prior to the RAA Ltd change are posted on the site. They make it very clear who is responsible for what during the Agreement period. I'd suggest you go and have a look at a few of them and bring yourself up to date.  I couldn't see any reason an RAA Ltd member couldn't get a copy of the current agreement either, although their Ltd status  may let them keep it secret. However even looking at them in the 2010-2013 period tells you what got done and what didn't.

[facthunter]

Why don't YOU tell US how you would fix it? Litigants have a right to get Justice also. . I contend you can't contract out of a liability you have under Federal Govt Legislation. The CASA is the Authority on things in the AIR. I've been through the later rules. It Implies your liability is ONE dollar as a member. I saw no mention of shareholder. Nev

[BrendAn]

RAAus is an Approved Self-Administering Aviation Organisation (ASAO) formed under Part 149 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations and ultimately answerable to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

 

this line is out of the coroners report 

[Love to fly]

On 6/2/2025 at 11:11 AM, turboplanner said:

And for this case you're interested in check the Austlii website to see if it's on the site yet, because that will include the decision and details

Coroner’s Findings attached.COR 2022 005430 Form 37-Finding into Death Following Inquest_Signed.pdfCOR 2022 005430 Form 37-Finding into Death Following Inquest_Signed.pdf

[turboplanner]

13 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

RAAus is an Approved Self-Administering Aviation Organisation (ASAO) formed under Part 149 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations and ultimately answerable to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

 

this line is out of the coroners report 

Well the Coroner's Report says:

 

"4. The registration of the aeroplane and Mr Farrell's licence to fly were regulated, in the first instance, by Recreational Aviation              Australia (RAAus)

5.   RAAus is an approved Self-Administered .......as written above.

 

If we then start with the SAAO Deeds of Agreement, the first one I found was with GFA 2015/16 which spells out on Page 10, Para 9   

"9. Indemnity 9.1 The GFA indemnifies CASA, its officers, employees and contractors against any liability, loss, damage, cost (including the cost of any settlement and legal costs and expenses on a solicitor and own client basis), compensation or expense arising out of or in any way in connection with: (a) a default or any unlawful, willful or negligent act or omission on the part of the GFA, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors in connection with this Deed; or (b) any action, claim, dispute, suit or proceeding brought by any third party in respect of any use, infringement or alleged infringement of that third party's Intellectual Property Rights or Moral Rights in connection with this Deed. 9.2 The GFA's liability to indemnify CASA under clause 9.1 will be reduced proportionally to the extent that any act or omission of CASA or its employees or Agents contributed to the loss or liability."

 

These Deeds of Agreement haove now been replaced by Part 103 and Part 149 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR 199) so anyone interested will be able to see exactly what the current wording is by going onto the CASA Website.

 

 

 

 

[BrendAn]

20 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Well the Coroner's Report says:

 

"4. The registration of the aeroplane and Mr Farrell's licence to fly were regulated, in the first instance, by Recreational Aviation              Australia (RAAus)

5.   RAAus is an approved Self-Administered .......as written above.

 

If we then start with the SAAO Deeds of Agreement, the first one I found was with GFA 2015/16 which spells out on Page 10, Para 9   

"9. Indemnity 9.1 The GFA indemnifies CASA, its officers, employees and contractors against any liability, loss, damage, cost (including the cost of any settlement and legal costs and expenses on a solicitor and own client basis), compensation or expense arising out of or in any way in connection with: (a) a default or any unlawful, willful or negligent act or omission on the part of the GFA, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors in connection with this Deed; or (b) any action, claim, dispute, suit or proceeding brought by any third party in respect of any use, infringement or alleged infringement of that third party's Intellectual Property Rights or Moral Rights in connection with this Deed. 9.2 The GFA's liability to indemnify CASA under clause 9.1 will be reduced proportionally to the extent that any act or omission of CASA or its employees or Agents contributed to the loss or liability."

 

These Deeds of Agreement haove now been replaced by Part 103 and Part 149 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR 199) so anyone interested will be able to see exactly what the current wording is by going onto the CASA Website.

 

 

 

 

So casa has their bum covered. I understand what you are saying now.  

But what becomes of raaus will still be casas decision. 

[turboplanner]

54 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

So casa has their bum covered. I understand what you are saying now.  

But what becomes of raaus will still be casas decision. 

Because they are separate bodies they're disposable if the worst come to the worst and CASA doesn't want one.

We've had RAA Inc close down  and Raa Ltd open up without the SAAO operations blinking.

We've had HGFA replaced by SAFA.

 

[facthunter]

IS ALL of  THAT good? I don't see your point. Surely WE need stability and the assurance that goes with it?  When people stuff around participants lose Money  and get  Older,  waiting. Nev

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

IS ALL of  THAT good? I don't see your point. Surely WE need stability and the assurance that goes with it?  When people stuff around participants lose Money  and get  Older,  waiting. Nev

Firstly it's good to be able to find it, and correct the out of date line you were shooting.

Secondly, from the mid 1980s that's how virtually every sporting or recreational activity now works; you can sponge off taxpayers any more; there are direct consequences for negligence.