For those interested…and thank you for sharing your informative posts to date.
LINK 1 --
Attachment 213 and the other papers have disappeared from the APH site.
Found this today – the information in this link is crucial to understanding matters relating to the ASX pre 2013 and during/post 2013 – Senate Inquiry. The subject of attachment 213 was the ASX (and ASIC). Attachment 213 - was withheld and not heard. Nothing has changed – in fact, if you add the spate of short sellers’ reports re RFF and WTC in 2019 and other recent information – the situation has worsened. ASX listed companies and their shareholders are now having to comprehend more ‘blatant’ and damaging issues than those tabled and included in attachment 213…..particularly in relation to the ‘actions and conduct’ of the ASX itself.
If you are interested and if the link won’t open in HC, paste this link into your browser and search for attachment 213.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=senate inquiry into asic 2013 attachment 213You should see this message:
SENATE ENQUIRY
https://www.aph.gov.au › DocumentStoreSubmission
213 -
Attachment 1. Page 2. 2. CONTENTS. 1.1.1 BACKGROUND TO COMPLAINTS BEING REFERRED TO
ASIC … ..... threads with
ASIC officers that are also provided as an
attachment to the
Senate enquiry submission. ...
ASIC Complaint
2013-1 has been acknowledged although it is uncertain as to what ...
Then you should see this as one of the first pages:
View attachment 1900369LINK 2 –
If interested – there is this also this later website link from 2016 which reveals more clues as it is filed and found under asx.com.au/documents/regulation.https://www.asx.com.au/documents/regulation/boardwalk-consultancy-attachment-corporate-and-personal-liability-for-culture-in-corporations.pdfEXCERPTS FROM LINK 2
Corporate and personal liability for “culture” in corporations?
John HC Colvin and James Argent*
(2016) 34 C&SLJ 30
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has proposed introducing personal and corporate liability for the culture of a corporation. This article argues that ASIC’s position should be rejected. First, culture cannot be effectively defined. Culture is also not capable of precise measurement. The need for certainty in defining and measuring culture is necessary for culture to be a basis for individual or corporate liability. Secondly, culture is not a concept that should be regulated. Thirdly, the proposed laws could significantly expand ASIC’s powers and such powers may be open to abuse.
INTRODUCTION
(my note when reviewing in 2019 – read/replace the “the corporation” and “culture” by substituting the ASX as the corporation and/or culture being referred to…similar to the banks as corporate entities and cultures and what we know of them since the RC and subsequent outcomes for the big 4 banks).
2016 – the excerpt from the 2nd link freely accessed article continued “The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has proposed introducing liability for corporations and personal liability for officers and directors based on the culture of the corporation. We agree with ASIC that culture can play an important function in business. However, culture cannot and should not be used to impose liability on corporations, directors and officers. There are three points that we want to emphasise. First, culture should not be regulated. Corporate culture is not a settled discipline. 1 Culture has different meanings in different contexts. It cannot be defined and measured in an objective sense which would be necessary for culture to be the foundation for civil or criminal liability under the Corporations Act 2001(Cth). Secondly, even if culture could be regulated, more regulation is not the answer. ASIC’s proposal would have a detrimental effect on, and add to the regulatory burden faced by, corporations, directors and officers. Thirdly, ASIC’s proposed amendments would significantly and unnecessarily expand ASIC’s powers. These powers could be open to abuse.
My comment as prelude underlined...then ASIC's quotes in parentheses.
View attachment 1900387 ***
A suggestion - there are many ISX holders posting and/or submitting invaluable information on HC and elsewhere - don’t forget to forward any information you consider relevant to investors@iSignthis.com or to [email protected]
You definitely cannot assume ISX have the time to research ‘all other biased, damaging and extraneous matters’ and I believe it would help if ISX were kept informed of some of the research and facts uncovered by ISX shareholders. ISX is a company/with patents/business modelling/client bases which ISX are keen to develop and expand – a company now being distracted and damaged by ASX’s ‘unexplained’ actions.
Also ‘appointed lawyers’ are often not as well researched or as informed as the ‘parties affected’. In this case, the parties affected are not only ISX, the company, but also the shareholders.
