Business Daily Media

Men's Weekly

.

Daniel Schlaepfer issues statement regarding the outcome of Daniel Schlaepfer vs. Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) appeal

  • Written by PR Newswire

TORONTO, July 1, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- The below is a statement released on behalf of Daniel Schlaepfer following today's verdict on his appeal.

Mr. Schlaepfer is pleased that ASIC's truth defence has been struck down, rejecting the finding that Select Vantage Inc. (SVI) traders had engaged in market manipulation.

The judgment concluded that: "Although Mr Schlaepfer has been unsuccessful in the outcome of the appeal, he has been successful on most issues including the defence of truth, which occupied a substantial portion of the proceedings. That success has achieved what was said to be an important outcome of the appeal, namely, the vindication of Mr. Schlaepfer's reputation. Although ASIC has succeeded in establishing the defence of qualified privilege at common law, that is a defence of confession and avoidance. To put the matter another way, Mr Schlaepfer has established in the appeal that he was defamed, but defensibly so." (p. 135)

Mr. Schlaepfer stated further: "We are glad that this lengthy process has come to a conclusion. Suing powerful regulators for inappropriate conduct is not an endeavour one enters into lightly. We felt forced to do so in light of what we perceived to be unfair behaviour by ASIC. The success of our case upholds some important precepts surrounding transparency and accountability in financial regulation - market participants shouldn't have to suffer reputational damage as a result of unfounded hearsay. Sometimes the concerns of regulators are simply misunderstandings – these issues should be raised with firms directly, who should then be provided with the opportunity to explain their behaviour. If the regulator isn't satisfied with the explanation, they can always open a formal investigation."

"However the fact that ASIC's defence of qualified privilege was upheld is worrying and could set a dangerous precedent for financial regulation. This demonstrates that regulators can act with impunity in causing significant reputational damage resulting in material financial losses to market participants through the communication of unsubstantiated hearsay. Moreover, they can do so without informing the market participants in question, and without providing them with an opportunity to explain their behaviour before such communications are made."

 

Read more https://www.prnasia.com/story/archive/3429967_AE29967_0

How to ensure your manufacturing business survives international tariff turmoil

Optimising your operations in FY2026 will help you combat the challenges of a volatile trading environment. Up, down, in out…Since the commence...

Why Apptio is Enhancing Visibility into AI and Hybrid Cloud

AI investments have become a strategic priority for business with the mindset that if you're not using AI, you're falling behind. But according to...

Beyond borders: Building a scalable strategy for international hiring

For many Australian businesses, growth increasingly depends on thinking beyond local borders.  As wage pressures rise, and specialised talent pool...

The Next Generation of Maritime Sustainable Solutions

As organizations globally seek innovative ways to improve sustainability and their impact on Earth, the American Waterways Operators (AWO), a lead...

Demand for Home Batteries surges as Federal Rebate Kicks In

A leading provider of energy solutions VoltX Energy has seen a 400% increase in demand for home batteries in the past three weeks as people put d...

Why Sport Remains the Safest Bet in an Uncertain World

When Rome was in crisis, its leaders did not retreat to the Senate. They went to the circus. To the chariot races. To the gladiators. Sport was no...

Sell by LayBy