RiskOperational RiskAustralian Company Directors Complain of Legal Pressures

Australian Company Directors Complain of Legal Pressures

Australian directors are reluctant to inform the market on the prospects for their companies and instead allow ‘a mountain of lawyers’ to draft boilerplate statements that frustrate investors because of ‘enormous legalistic pressure’, according to the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD).

The AICD has lobbied for protection that would allow directors to make forward-looking statements about their companies, and warned there was a ‘massive incentive in Australia’ to withhold information.

“There is enormous legalistic pressure,” said AICD chief executive officer (CEO), John Colvin. “You’ve got disclosure rules, then you’ve got class actions, you’ve got the Australian Securities and Investment Commission [ASIC], you’ve got such an array of people to attack directors under various pieces of legislation that it’s really a difficult thing to do for directors to give what many of the investors want, which is greater disclosure of prospect.

“These days you would have to have a mountain of lawyers drafting it for you so that you wouldn’t get into too much trouble, which is ridiculous. It’s to the detriment of everybody.”

The AICD’s chief issued the warning as he released a new paper outlining the election priorities for company directors, which has been sent to Labor ministers and their Coalition counterparts.

In addition to its campaign pushing for protections for forward-looking disclosures, the AICD has used the prospect of Australia’s upcoming election to again call for the business judgment rule to be extended as part of a wider reform of the country’s insolvency laws that are ‘among the harshest in the world’, and for further reform of director liability.

It also wants the government to improve the way that it interacts with business, reduce red tape and overhaul the process of regulation-making.

The ruling Labor administration has been criticised for its handling of business measures including the resource super-profits tax, the carbon tax and the recent sudden change to the tax treatment of company cars.

The AICD said in its policy on Australia’s 2013 election that the business judgment rule should be extended to provide more legal protection from insolvent trading claims for directors trying to work their companies out of financial difficulties.

Related Articles

The digital fortress: fortifying your treasury

Operational Risk The digital fortress: fortifying your treasury

6m Martin Bellin
De-risking trade finance operations: A transitional approach

Bank Relationships De-risking trade finance operations: A transitional approach

6m Jacco de Jong
2017's most read: Open API: unlocking innovative new services in banking

Automation 2017's most read: Open API: unlocking innovative new services in banking

7m Lu Zurawski
BNP Paribas Cash Management University day 2: cyber attacks, predictive analytics and investing

Banking BNP Paribas Cash Management University day 2: cyber attacks, predictive analytics and investing

8m Victoria Beckett
Can you afford not to be ethical?

Compliance Can you afford not to be ethical?

11m Philippa Foster Back
A ‘wait and see’ approach won’t work: US businesses must prepare for GDPR

Bank Relationships A ‘wait and see’ approach won’t work: US businesses must prepare for GDPR

11m Patrick Lastennet
Ethnic diversity in top companies improves

Consumer/Retail Ethnic diversity in top companies improves

11m Graham Buck
Brexit confusion over MiFID II compliance: Let the preparations begin…

Compliance Brexit confusion over MiFID II compliance: Let the preparations begin…

11m Matthew Bryars