WoodyAllen
Well-known member
Below article is not mine, not written by me and I have no particular opinion about it. Just posting for general info.
************
POWERLIFTING AUSTRALIA AND THE IPF
You may be aware that just recently the Luxemburg Civil Court ruled predominantly in favour of Powerlifting Australia, the Oceania Powerlifting Federation and Robert Wilks, in that many purported resolutions of the IPF, extending back some 10 years, were declared void. This has the effect that those bodies all now resume their standing in the IPF.
Fuller details on the ruling can be found here. (*See below*)
There will no doubt be further legalities to follow. However, this ruling only makes the future of Powerlifting even more clear. Powerlifting Australia and the Oceania Powerlifting Federation retain their prime affiliations as with World Powerlifting and that body continues to grow by virtue of it’s integrity, equitable local and international competitions and credible anti-doping programme.
================
REPORT TO MEMBERS REGARDING THE PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY POWERLIFTING AUSTRALIA, THE OCEANIA POWERLIFTING FEDERATION & ROBERT WILKS AGAINST THE IPF IN THE CIVIL COURT OF LUXEMBOURG
On 31 October 2018, the Civil Court of Luxembourg handed down its decision in the proceeding brought against the IPF.
You will recall that the commencement of this proceeding was a principal reason given by the Executive of the IPF as to why Powerlifting Australia, the Oceania Powerlifting Federation and Robert Wilks ought to be excluded from the activities of the IPF.
The Court found that the IPF had committed numerous breaches of the Luxembourg Law governing not for profit organisations, including:
● Failure to comply with requirements as to the content of the IPF Statutes, specifically the failure to include the names, professions, domiciles and nationalities of members;
● Failure to file annual lists of members’ names and contact details;
● Making statutory amendments in 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2017 in breach of
the IPF Statutes;
● Amending the IPF Statutes at general meetings held between 2008 and 2017 where
the quorum of presence of two thirds of the members (as required by Article 8 of the Luxembourg Law) had not been reached.
Article 8 of the Luxembourg Law very clearly states that " The general meeting may validly deliberate upon amendments to the by-laws only if ... the meeting brings together two-thirds of the members. No amendment may be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the votes" .
These breaches persisted since the IPF was registered in Luxembourg in 2007 until the first remedial action was taken to file financials and some other documents in 2017 (in response to the commencement of the proceeding against the IPF). Significantly, and in the face of the proceedings pending in the Luxembourg Court and very clear wording of Article 8 of the Luxembourg Law, the IPF Executive proceeded to further amend its Statutes at the 2017 General Assembly, again on the unlawful basis that a two-third majority of voters present at the meeting was sufficient.
The Luxembourg Civil Court has declared " null and void the entirety of the statutory amendments adopted by the general meeting of the non-profit association of Luxembourg law INTERNATIONAL POWERLIFTING FEDERATION during general assemblies which were held between 2008 and 2017 ".
The applicable Statutes of the IPF are those published in 2007. All amendments have been ruled null and void and all decisions of the IPF taken in pursuance of the unlawful amendments are similarly invalid. This invalidity includes the 2017 decisions of the General Assembly to exclude Powerlifting Australia, the Oceania Powerlifting Federation and Robert Wilks from the activities of the IPF.
We have been vindicated in our efforts to hold the Executive of the IPF to account for engaging in activities which were very clearly contrary to law and for which there was and can be no justification. Whilst, by our exclusion, the IPF Executive has been able to sweep under the carpet the serious disciplinary complaints filed against current members of the Executive, some of the truth of its activities, which brought the IPF EC into conflict with Powerlifting Australia and the Oceania Powerlifting Federation, has now been laid bare in the judgment of the Court.
The Civil Court of Luxembourg also declared invalid the 2016 refusal by the General Assembly to ratify my nomination to the Executive Committee as representative of the Oceania region.
We will now pursue our rights.
************
POWERLIFTING AUSTRALIA AND THE IPF
You may be aware that just recently the Luxemburg Civil Court ruled predominantly in favour of Powerlifting Australia, the Oceania Powerlifting Federation and Robert Wilks, in that many purported resolutions of the IPF, extending back some 10 years, were declared void. This has the effect that those bodies all now resume their standing in the IPF.
Fuller details on the ruling can be found here. (*See below*)
There will no doubt be further legalities to follow. However, this ruling only makes the future of Powerlifting even more clear. Powerlifting Australia and the Oceania Powerlifting Federation retain their prime affiliations as with World Powerlifting and that body continues to grow by virtue of it’s integrity, equitable local and international competitions and credible anti-doping programme.
================
REPORT TO MEMBERS REGARDING THE PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY POWERLIFTING AUSTRALIA, THE OCEANIA POWERLIFTING FEDERATION & ROBERT WILKS AGAINST THE IPF IN THE CIVIL COURT OF LUXEMBOURG
On 31 October 2018, the Civil Court of Luxembourg handed down its decision in the proceeding brought against the IPF.
You will recall that the commencement of this proceeding was a principal reason given by the Executive of the IPF as to why Powerlifting Australia, the Oceania Powerlifting Federation and Robert Wilks ought to be excluded from the activities of the IPF.
The Court found that the IPF had committed numerous breaches of the Luxembourg Law governing not for profit organisations, including:
● Failure to comply with requirements as to the content of the IPF Statutes, specifically the failure to include the names, professions, domiciles and nationalities of members;
● Failure to file annual lists of members’ names and contact details;
● Making statutory amendments in 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2017 in breach of
the IPF Statutes;
● Amending the IPF Statutes at general meetings held between 2008 and 2017 where
the quorum of presence of two thirds of the members (as required by Article 8 of the Luxembourg Law) had not been reached.
Article 8 of the Luxembourg Law very clearly states that " The general meeting may validly deliberate upon amendments to the by-laws only if ... the meeting brings together two-thirds of the members. No amendment may be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the votes" .
These breaches persisted since the IPF was registered in Luxembourg in 2007 until the first remedial action was taken to file financials and some other documents in 2017 (in response to the commencement of the proceeding against the IPF). Significantly, and in the face of the proceedings pending in the Luxembourg Court and very clear wording of Article 8 of the Luxembourg Law, the IPF Executive proceeded to further amend its Statutes at the 2017 General Assembly, again on the unlawful basis that a two-third majority of voters present at the meeting was sufficient.
The Luxembourg Civil Court has declared " null and void the entirety of the statutory amendments adopted by the general meeting of the non-profit association of Luxembourg law INTERNATIONAL POWERLIFTING FEDERATION during general assemblies which were held between 2008 and 2017 ".
The applicable Statutes of the IPF are those published in 2007. All amendments have been ruled null and void and all decisions of the IPF taken in pursuance of the unlawful amendments are similarly invalid. This invalidity includes the 2017 decisions of the General Assembly to exclude Powerlifting Australia, the Oceania Powerlifting Federation and Robert Wilks from the activities of the IPF.
We have been vindicated in our efforts to hold the Executive of the IPF to account for engaging in activities which were very clearly contrary to law and for which there was and can be no justification. Whilst, by our exclusion, the IPF Executive has been able to sweep under the carpet the serious disciplinary complaints filed against current members of the Executive, some of the truth of its activities, which brought the IPF EC into conflict with Powerlifting Australia and the Oceania Powerlifting Federation, has now been laid bare in the judgment of the Court.
The Civil Court of Luxembourg also declared invalid the 2016 refusal by the General Assembly to ratify my nomination to the Executive Committee as representative of the Oceania region.
We will now pursue our rights.
