ASIC are under-funded and consequently they prioritize what they take on.
Unless it involves a great deal of money, I don't think they are interested.
If you lodge a complaint, they specifically tell you that they will not get back to you about it.
Further below is the actual response that I received in respect to another matter.
My complaint related to an entity that decided against proceeding with a takeover and started selling their substantial stake in the target. They delayed putting in a change in substantial holding notice. They relied on the vagueness in the Corporations Act as to whether the clock for the requirement to put in a notice is started when the on-market trade is made or when the traded shares are actually settled. Most folk do it on the basis of when the trade is made, but if somebody wants to conceal what they are doing as long as possible, they rely on the settlement date as the trigger point. I was querying what is ASIC's interpretation of this aspect of the Act and suggesting that it should be clarified so that everybody knows exactly what the rule is.
"Dear CUSTOMER Thank you for your enquiry You can find the information you need on our website at: http://www.ASIC.gov.au/complain Due to the unique nature of each enquiry ASIC is not able to provide interpretations or recommendations specific to some enquiries or circumstances. If you require further information please seek independent advice through an ASIC registered agent, your accountant or solicitor. Regards, Diego Customer Service Officer Australian Securities & Investments Commission"
I seem to recall that I also received a phone call from ASIC as well as the email response above, but the import of the call was along the same lines. Don't call us we'll call you.
Deep down, you know that hope is fleeing over the horizon with its ar$e on fire, when ASIC refers to you as a "customer".
It reminds me of the telephone recorded message that goes:
"Your call is important to to us, please stay on hold until your call is no longer important to you".
But don't let me discourage you.
You experience might be refreshingly different to mine.
I am guessing that you might be thinking about directors duties, which, inter alia, include:
"Good faith - to act in good faith in the best interests of the company and for a proper purpose (s 181), including to avoid conflicts of interest, and to reveal and manage conflicts if they arise. This is both a duty of fidelity and trust, known as a ‘fiduciary duty’ imposed by general law and a duty required in legislation;"
"Disclosing directors’ interests - disclosing matters relating to the affairs of the company in which he/she has a material personal interest (s191), particularly in the context of the requirement that public companies obtain shareholder approval for related party transactions (s 208), and disclosure of director’s interests to the market (s 205G);"
Cheers
These are my opinions only. Nothing that I have written here should be construed as disparagement of any of the parties or entities involved. For all I know, all of the parties and entities may be completely convinced of the correctness of their actions and be acting from the highest possible motives with all due skill and care in accord with their various responsibilities and obligations. Any figures and facts are mentioned in good faith but I accept no responsibility for their accuracy.
(20min delay)
