Originally posted by Basileus
Thanks for the response.
1. "
I will refer you to a post that I placed in here last year regarding my responsibilities on behalf of the company and how I report and behave as a duly appointed company representative for Cann Global Limited."
That might be the policy of CGB with respect to your role and responsibilities but it is, in my view, not a legal liability / responsibility as you claimed earlier in a post that I subsequently challenged.
2. "
As a company representative on HotCopper I am required to be aware of, and understand reporting behaviour on an SDI platform and also be mindful that public comments do not breach the Corporations Act (2001) (cth) s.77.1, on an SDI platform, and/or breach the ASX Listing Rule 3.1. for publishing market-sensitive information."
I am not sure what a SDI is but perhaps you were referring to an IDS (
Internet
Discussion
Site) - yes? Well ... that's ok I often confuse acronyms. And FYI, ASX Listing Rules are not sections of the Act.
You refer to section 77.1
And are you now in the business of offering advice (s. 77.1)? If not - then s. 77.1 does not apply to you.
Here is that section. May I ask how that applies to you?
Section 77 - Investment advice business
"
(1) A reference to an investment advice business, in relation to a person, is a reference to:
(a) a business of advising other persons about securities; or
(b) a business in the course of which the person publishes securities reports."
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/ca2001172/s77.html
3. "
My style of language and responses to the members in this forum, as required by the Board of Directors, is expected to be both professional and respectful in manner."
This is irrelevant information as it does not support your claim to being bound by "sections" of the Corporations Act when posting. The stye of your language (respectful etc.) has nothing whatsoever to do with the law as you previously referred to under the
Corporations Act (2001) (Cth).
What I was looking for was your response to and understanding of the ruling in aforementioned case and the application of that ruling as it is applied by ASIC to an
IDS operator given their interpretation of the case and the relevant sections of the
Corporations Act (2001) (Cth).
In short, the key points are centered on the
liability of the operator (of which you are not as far as I know) and whether
a poster is offering financial advice (which is not permitted on HC) so the issue becomes redundant.
If, you are not an operator nor offering financial advice as a poster, then I think that your original statement made in your earlier post is incorrect or, at best, misapplied.
