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

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...

THE FINE LINE WITHIN HILARIOUS SIGNAGE DESIGN FAILS

It seems like design failures still occur in today’s modern branding era, despite rigorous rounds of approvals behind the scenes. One signage show...

Deputy Announces Exclusive Global Partnership with Predelo to Bring AI to Shift-Based Businesses

Deputy, the global people platform for shift-based businesses, has announced an exclusive partnership with Predelo, an AI Decision Agent-as-a-Serv...

Leftover Budget? The Last-Minute EOFY Tip to Drive Business Success in FY25/26

The countdown is on. With just days left until EOFY, now’s the time to make your remaining 2024–2025 budget work harder and smarter. After workin...

pay.com.au appoints new CEO and Managing Director

The former COO will lead the company’s next growth phase, with ex-CEO Edward Alder transitioning into the role of Managing Director AUSTRALIA, 25...

Sell by LayBy