You obviously haven't read it or you haven't understood it if...

You obviously haven't read it or you haven't understood it if you have. I even picked that sentence out for you: that the trade is not a price which reflects the forces of genuine supply and demand in an open, informed and efficient market.


It would be simple to prove that the trade deliberately made at that level in that quantity at that time was LIKELY to have that effect given my example above.

That's all.

The High Court threw out the US law here.

1. For these reasons, the majority in the Court of Appeal was wrong to conclude that s 1041A should be construed as directed to "market manipulation by conduct of the kind typified by American jurisprudential conceptions of 'cornering' and 'squeezing'". Contrary to the conclusions of the majority in the Court of Appeal, s 1041A is not confined in its application to the creation or maintenance of an artificial price by a dominant market participant exercising that participant's market power. A purchase of listed shares made on the ASX for the sole, or at the least dominant, purpose of ensuring that the price of the shares was not less than the price paid for that purchase is a transaction which has or is likely to have the effect of creating an artificial price for trading in those shares, or maintaining at a level that is artificial a price for trading in those shares.

2. The CDPP's appeal to this Court should be allowed.