Sebagian Benar

Penilaian: 6.5/10

Laporkan Masalah
Coalition
C0155

Klaim

“Melonggarkannya aturan pengungkapan keuangan perusahaan selama pandemi, yang mencegah investor untuk mengajukan gugatan class action terhadap perusahaan yang menyesatkan pasar melalui penghilangan informasi penting.”
COVID Ekonomi
Sumber Asli: Matthew Davis
Dianalisis: 29 Jan 2026

Sumber Asli

✅ VERIFIKASI FAKTA

Klaim intinya **secara substansial akurat**, tetapi memerlukan kualifikasi yang signifikan mengenai ruang lingkup dan mekanisme perubahan aturan.
The core claim is **substantially accurate**, but requires significant qualification regarding the scope and mechanics of the rule changes.
 ### Kronologi Peristiwa
### Timeline of Events
 Pemerintah Koalisi memang secara formal melonggarkan standar pengungkapan keuangan perusahaan sebagai respons terhadap COVID-19 melalui **Corporations (Coronavirus Economic Response) Determination (No. 2) 2020** (Penetapan Korporasi (Respons Ekonomi Coronavirus) No. 2 Tahun 2020), yang mulai berlaku pada **26 Mei 2020** [1][2].
The Coalition government did formally loosen corporate financial disclosure standards in response to COVID-19 through the **Corporations (Coronavirus Economic Response) Determination (No. 2) 2020**, which came into effect on **26 May 2020** [1][2].
 Relaksasi sementara awalnya dijadwalkan berakhir setelah 6 bulan tetapi kemudian diperpanjang hingga **23 Maret 2021** (total durasi: 10 bulan) [3].
The temporary relief was initially set to expire after 6 months but was subsequently extended through to **23 March 2021** (total duration: 10 months) [3].
 Modifikasi utama mengubah standar pengungkapan berkelanjutan (continuous disclosure) dalam pasal 674, 675, dan 677 Corporations Act (Undang-Undang Korporasi) dengan menggeser dari **tes objektif ke tes subjektif** [1].
The key modification changed the continuous disclosure standard in sections 674, 675, and 677 of the Corporations Act by shifting from an **objective test to a subjective test** [1].
 Secara spesifik: - **Sebelumnya:** Informasi harus diungkapkan jika "orang yang masuk akal" (a reasonable person) akan mengharapkannya memiliki efek material pada harga atau nilai sekuritas perusahaan (tes objektif) - **Sesudahnya:** Informasi hanya memerlukan pengungkapan jika entitas "mengetahui atau dengan sengaja atau karena kelalaian" (knows or is reckless or negligent) mengenai apakah hal tersebut akan memiliki efek material (tes subjektif yang memerlukan pembuktian kesalahan) [2][4] Perubahan ini bukan sekadar perpanjangan tenggat administratif tetapi modifikasi substantif terhadap standar pertanggungjawaban.
Specifically: - **Before:** Information must be disclosed if "a reasonable person" would expect it to have a material effect on the price or value of the company's securities (objective test) - **After:** Information only requires disclosure if the entity "knows or is reckless or negligent" as to whether it would have a material effect (subjective test requiring proof of fault) [2][4] This change was not merely administrative deadline extension but a substantive modification to liability standards.
 ### Implementasi Permanen
### Permanent Implementation
 Penting untuk dicatat, langkah-langkah relaksasi sementara ini dijadikan **undang-undang yang permanen** melalui **Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Act 2021** (Amandemen Undang-Undang Perbendaharaan (Langkah-Langkah 2021 No. 1) Tahun 2021), yang disahkan Parlemen pada **13 Agustus 2021** [5][6].
Critically, these temporary relief measures were made **permanently law** through the **Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Act 2021**, which passed Parliament on **13 August 2021** [5][6].
 Amandemen permanen secara eksplisit menanamkan elemen kesalahan (pengetahuan, sengaja, atau kelalaian) ke dalam pasal 674A Corporations Act secara khusus untuk penggugat pribadi (gugatan class action) [6].
The permanent amendment explicitly embedded the fault element (knowledge, recklessness, or negligence) into section 674A of the Corporations Act specifically for private litigants (class actions) [6].
 Dokumen-dokumen pemerintah secara eksplisit menyatakan Amandemen 2021 "dinyatakan dengan tegas dimaksudkan untuk mengurangi insiden gugatan class action yang oportunistik terhadap perusahaan yang terdaftar di Bursa Efek Australia (ASX)" [6].
Government documents explicitly state the 2021 Amendment was "expressly stated to be intended to reduce the incidence of opportunistic class actions against ASX-listed companies" [6].

Konteks yang Hilang

### Klaim Ini Menyederhanakan Mekanisme
### The Claim Oversimplifies the Mechanism
 Klaim menyatakan aturan-aturan tersebut "mencegah investor untuk mengajukan gugatan class action." Ini tidak akurat.
The claim states the rules "prevented investors from lodging class actions." This is inaccurate.
 Investor masih dapat mengajukan gugatan class action; perubahan-perubahan membuatnya **lebih sulit dan lebih mahal** untuk berhasil dalam klaim berdasarkan **informasi yang dihilangkan** (omissions) [7].
Investors can still lodge class actions; the changes made it **harder and more expensive** to succeed in claims based on **omitted information** [7].
 Secara spesifik: - Investor masih dapat menggugat jika perusahaan membuat **pernyataan palsu**; elemen kesalahan tidak berlaku untuk salah penyampaian aktif (active misrepresentation) [7][8] - Investor masih dapat mengajukan gugatan class action tentang penghilangan informasi; mereka sekarang harus membuktikan bahwa direksi "lalai atau sengaja" mengenai apakah informasi tersebut bersifat material [6][8] - Membuktikan kelalaian direksi tentang informasi yang dihilangkan memerlukan proses penemuan (discovery) terhadap proses dan pertimbangan dewan, yang meningkatkan biaya litigasi [7]
Specifically: - Investors can still sue if companies made **false statements**; the fault element does not apply to active misrepresentation [7][8] - Investors can still lodge class actions about omissions; they must now prove that directors were "negligent or reckless" about whether information was material [6][8] - Proving directors' negligence about omitted information requires discovery into board processes and deliberations, increasing litigation costs [7]
 ### Perbedaan: Penghilangan vs. Pernyataan Salah
### The Distinction: Omissions vs. Misstatements
 Komentator hukum mencatat bahwa relaksasi sementara "kemungkinan besar tidak efektif" karena [7]: - Perusahaan yang membuat **pernyataan palsu** sudah menghadapi pertanggungjawaban berdasarkan pasal 1041H (perilaku yang menyesatkan atau menipu) tanpa persyaratan kesalahan apa pun - Relaksasi hanya membantu perusahaan yang sama sekali menghilangkan informasi, bukan yang membuat pengungkapan yang tidak akurat - Dampak praktis lebih sempit daripada cakupan relaksasi yang disarankan Ini penting: pembingkaian klaim tentang "menyesatkan pasar melalui penghilangan informasi penting" akurat mengenai apa yang menjadi target relaksasi, tetapi tidak tentang pencegahan litigasi—relaksasi membuat litigasi semacam itu lebih sulit, bukan tidak mungkin.
Legal commentators noted that the temporary relief was "likely to be ineffective" because [7]: - Companies making **false statements** already faced liability under section 1041H (misleading or deceptive conduct) without any fault requirement - The relief only helped companies that omitted information entirely, not those that made inaccurate disclosures - The practical impact was narrower than the relief's scope suggested This is critical: the claim's framing of "mislead the market through omission of important information" is accurate regarding what the relief targeted, but not about prevention of litigation—it made such litigation more difficult, not impossible.
 ### Durasi Melampaui Pandemi
### Duration Beyond Pandemic
 Klaim merujuk pada pelonggaran era pandemi, yang akurat untuk perubahan Mei 2020.
The claim references pandemic-era loosening, which is accurate for the initial May 2020 change.
 Namun, amandemen permanen Agustus 2021 berlaku **untuk semua masalah pengungkapan berkelanjutan di masa depan tanpa batas waktu**, bukan hanya pengungkapan periode pandemi [5].
However, the permanent August 2021 amendment applies **to all future continuous disclosure matters indefinitely**, not just pandemic-period disclosures [5].
 Ini memperluas cakupan jauh melampaui maksud relaksasi sementara, meskipun perluasan ini terjadi melalui legislasi permanen daripada perpanjangan langkah-langkah darurat.
This expanded the scope far beyond the intended temporary relief, though this expansion occurred through permanent legislation rather than an extension of emergency measures.
 ### Fokus Kontradiktif ASIC
### ASIC's Contradictory Focus
 Perlu dicatat, siaran pers ASIC selama 2020 menunjukkan regulator sebenarnya menginginkan **lebih banyak** pengungkapan dampak terkait COVID, bukan lebih sedikit [9][10].
Notably, ASIC's media releases during 2020 show the regulator actually wanted **more** disclosure of COVID-related impacts, not less [9][10].
 ASIC secara khusus menekankan bahwa entitas harus secara menonjol mengungkapkan: - Jumlah bantuan signifikan terkait COVID yang diterima - Rincian bantuan pemerintah (JobKeeper, pengurangan pajak, penangguhan pinjaman) - Dampak nilai aset dari efek pandemi - Risiko bisnis dan ketidakpastian [9][10] Fokus regulasi ASIC menunjukkan relaksasi dimaksudkan untuk memberikan ruang bernapas selama ketidakpastian ekstrem, bukan untuk memfasilitasi non-pengungkapan.
ASIC specifically emphasized that entities should prominently disclose: - Significant COVID-related support amounts received - Government assistance details (JobKeeper, tax relief, loan deferrals) - Asset value impacts from pandemic effects - Business risks and uncertainties [9][10] ASIC's regulatory focus suggests the relaxation was intended to provide breathing room during extreme uncertainty, not to facilitate non-disclosure.

Penilaian Kredibilitas Sumber

### Sumber Asli: Artikel AFR
### Original Source: AFR Article
 Australian Financial Review (AFR) adalah **organisasi berita arus utama yang kredibel** dengan rekam jejak pelaporan bisnis dan keuangan [11].
The Australian Financial Review (AFR) is a **mainstream, credible news organization** with a track record of business and financial reporting [11].
 AFR: - Dimiliki oleh Nine Entertainment (perusahaan media Australia utama) - Mempekerjakan jurnalis keuangan dan politik yang terkhusus - Memiliki reputasi untuk pelaporan bisnis yang detail (meskipun konten berbayar mungkin mencerminkan model langganan mereka) - Pembingkaian headline ("companies-get-an-extension-to-shield-against-class-actions") adalah komentar editorial, mencerminkan interpretasi AFR tentang dampak kebijakan **Penilaian:** AFR adalah sumber yang bereputasi, tetapi artikel tersebut melaporkan implementasi kebijakan pemerintah selama periode krisis.
AFR: - Is owned by Nine Entertainment (a major Australian media company) - Employs specialized financial and political journalists - Has reputation for detailed business reporting (though paywalled content may reflect their subscription model) - The headline framing ("companies-get-an-extension-to-shield-against-class-actions") is editorial commentary, reflecting AFR's interpretation of the policy's impact **Assessment:** AFR is a reputable source, but the article is reporting on government policy implementation during crisis period.
 Pembingkaian "perlindungan terhadap gugatan class action" dalam URL menunjukkan interpretasi editorial tentang efek relaksasi, yang sejalan dengan analisis hukum yang menunjukkan peningkatan perlindungan bagi perusahaan [5][6][7].
The "shield against class actions" framing in the URL shows editorial interpretation of the relief's effect, which aligns with legal analyses showing increased protection for companies [5][6][7].
 ### Verifikasi Melalui Sumber Hukum
### Verification Through Legal Sources
 Konten faktual klaim diverifikasi oleh: - **Corrs Chambers Westgarth** (firma hukum Australia utama): Analisis detail tentang perubahan Mei 2020 [4] - **Herbert Smith Freehills** (firma hukum internasional utama): Membenarkan pemerintah mencari pelonggaran permanen aturan pengungkapan [2] - **Hamilton Locke** (firma hukum Australia): Mencatat Parlemen mengesahkan Amandemen 2021 yang kontroversial dengan niat eksplisit untuk mengurangi gugatan class action [5] - **Siaran pers ASIC** (otoritas regulasi): Mendokumentasikan posisi resmi tentang prioritas pengungkapan [9][10] Sumber-sumber ini membenarkan bahwa perubahan kebijakan nyata dan substansial, dibesar-besarkan atau direkayasa oleh AFR.
The claim's factual content is corroborated by: - **Corrs Chambers Westgarth** (major Australian law firm): Detailed analysis of the May 2020 changes [4] - **Herbert Smith Freehills** (major international law firm): Confirmed government sought permanent easing of disclosure rules [2] - **Hamilton Locke** (Australian law firm): Noted Parliament's passage of controversial 2021 Amendment with explicit intent to reduce class actions [5] - **ASIC media releases** (regulatory authority): Documented official position on disclosure priorities [9][10] These sources confirm the policy changes were real and substantive, not exaggerated or fabricated by AFR.
⚖️

Perbandingan Labor

**Apakah Labor melakukan hal yang serupa?** Labor tidak memperkenalkan relaksasi pengungkapan sementara yang setara selama krisis sebelumnya.
**Did Labor do something similar?** Labor did not introduce equivalent temporary disclosure relief during previous crises.
 Namun, respons Labor terhadap Amandemen 2021 (ketika mereka berkuasa pada Mei 2022) memberikan petunjuk:
However, Labor's response to the 2021 Amendment (when they came to power in May 2022) is instructive:
 ### Respons Labor 2022-2024
### Labor's 2022-2024 Response
 1. **Tinjauan Independen:** Labor menunjuk peninjau independen Kevin Lewis untuk menilai apakah Amandemen 2021 berfungsi sebagaimana dimaksud [12] 2. **Pendekatan Terbagi:** Daripada sepenuhnya mencabut Amandemen 2021, Labor: - **Mencabut elemen kesalahan untuk penegakan ASIC** (sehingga regulator dapat menuntut pelanggaran tanpa membuktikan kesalahan) [12] - **Mempertahankan elemen kesalahan untuk penggugat pribadi** (gugatan class action tetap tunduk pada ambang yang lebih tinggi) [12] 3. **Hasil:** Per tahun 2024, strukturnya tetap: ASIC dapat menindaklanjuti kasus pengungkapan berkelanjutan dengan mudah, tetapi penggugat gugatan class action harus membuktikan kelalaian tentang informasi yang dihilangkan [12]
1. **Independent Review:** Labor appointed independent reviewer Kevin Lewis to assess whether the 2021 Amendment was working as intended [12] 2. **Bifurcated Approach:** Rather than fully repealing the 2021 Amendment, Labor: - **Repealed the fault element for ASIC enforcement** (so regulators can prosecute breaches without proving fault) [12] - **Retained the fault element for private litigants** (class actions remain subject to higher bar) [12] 3. **Result:** As of 2024, the structure remains: ASIC can pursue continuous disclosure cases easily, but class action plaintiffs must prove negligence about omitted information [12]
 ### Penilaian
### Assessment
 Ini menunjukkan Labor menerima bahwa pembatasan gugatan class action yang permanen memiliki merit praktis (mengurangi biaya litigasi yang tidak berdasar bagi perusahaan) sambil mengakui bahwa penegakan regulasi harus tetap kuat [12].
This suggests Labor accepted that the permanent class action restrictions have practical merit (reducing frivolous litigation costs for companies) while recognizing that regulatory enforcement should remain robust [12].
 Labor tidak membuat perubahan yang berlawanan; mereka membuat penyempurnaan yang ditargetkan. **Kesimpulan:** Labor tidak memiliki padanan langsung dari masa jabatan sebelumnya.
Labor did not make opposite changes; they made targeted refinements. **Conclusion:** Labor does not have a direct equivalent from their previous time in office.
 Perbandingan terdekat adalah keputusan Labor pada 2023-2024 untuk **mempertahankan sebagian besar pembatasan tetap berlaku** daripada sepenuhnya memulihkan standar pra-2020, menunjukkan penerimaan lintas partai atas beberapa keterbatasan gugatan class action tambahan.
The closest comparison is Labor's decision in 2023-2024 to **keep most of the restrictions in place** rather than fully restore pre-2020 standards, suggesting cross-party acceptance of some additional class action limitations.
🌐

Perspektif Seimbang

### Argumen Mendukung Relaksasi
### Arguments Supporting the Relaxation
 **1.
**1.
 Konteks Pandemi** Pada Mei 2020, ketika Penetapan diimplementasikan, Australia menghadapi ketidakpastian ekstrem tentang: - Transmisi dan dampak kesehatan COVID-19 (berubah setiap minggu) - Durasi dan tingkat keparahan dampak ekonomi - Gangguan rantai pasokan - Durasi dan ruang lingkup penguncian (lockdown) Direksi menghadapi kesulitan nyata dalam memprediksi informasi apa yang akan "bersifat material" bagi investor ketika parameter fundamental tidak diketahui.
Pandemic Context** In May 2020, when the Determination was implemented, Australia faced extreme uncertainty about: - COVID-19 transmission and health impacts (changing weekly) - Economic impact duration and severity - Supply chain disruptions - Lockdown duration and scope Directors faced genuine difficulties predicting what information would be "material" to investors when fundamental parameters were unknown.
 Elemen kesalahan (kelalaian) memberikan perlindungan untuk keputusan pengungkapan yang masuk akal yang diambil dalam ketidakpastian ekstrem, daripada melindungi non-pengungkapan yang disengaja [4]. **2.
The fault element (negligence) provided protection for reasonable disclosure decisions made under extreme uncertainty, rather than protecting deliberate non-disclosure [4]. **2.
 Risiko Litigasi Oportunistik** Komentator hukum mencatat bahwa tanpa relaksasi tersebut, perusahaan mungkin menghadapi gugatan class action karena gagal mengungkapkan informasi yang tidak mungkin dinilai secara wajar sebagai material [7].
Opportunistic Litigation Risk** Legal commentators noted that without such relief, companies might face class actions for failing to disclose information that couldn't reasonably have been assessed as material [7].
 Relaksasi melindungi perusahaan dari litigasi di mana keputusan pengungkapan, meskipun kemudian tampak tidak memadai, masuk akal pada saat pengambilan keputusan [5]. **3.
The relaxation protected companies from litigation where disclosure decisions, while later appearing inadequate, were reasonable at the time of decision [5]. **3.
 Biaya Kepatuhan** Aturan pertanggungjawaban pengungkapan yang lebih agresif meningkatkan biaya untuk semua perusahaan, khususnya perusahaan kapitalisasi kecil-menengah yang kurang memiliki infrastruktur kepatuhan yang canggih.
Cost of Compliance** More aggressive disclosure liability rules increase costs for all companies, particularly small-to-mid-cap firms that lack sophisticated compliance infrastructure.
 Relaksasi sementara mengurangi tekanan kepatuhan selama periode krisis.
The temporary relaxation reduced compliance pressure during a crisis period.
 ### Argumen Menentang Relaksasi / Mendukung Perlindungan Investor
### Arguments Against the Relaxation / In Favor of Investor Protection
 **1.
**1.
 Masalah Implementasi Permanen** Kritik fundamental adalah bahwa relaksasi darurat sementara menjadi **undang-undang permanen melalui Amandemen Agustus 2021** [5][6].
Permanent Implementation Problem** The fundamental criticism is that temporary emergency relief became **permanent law through the August 2021 Amendment** [5][6].
 Sementara keadaan darurat pada Mei 2020 mungkin membenarkan fleksibilitas sementara, menjadikan perubahan ini permanen (Agustus 2021, jauh dalam pemulihan ekonomi) menggeser kebijakan dari respons krisis menjadi pengurangan perlindungan investor permanen [6][8].
While emergency circumstances in May 2020 might justify temporary flexibility, making these changes permanent (August 2021, well into economic recovery) shifted the policy from crisis response to permanent investor protection reduction [6][8].
 Dokumen pemerintah menyatakan amandemen permanen "dimaksudkan untuk mengurangi insiden gugatan class action yang oportunistik"—preferensi kebijakan yang tidak ada hubungannya dengan respons pandemi [5]. **2.
Government documents state the permanent amendment was "intended to reduce the incidence of opportunistic class actions"—a policy preference unrelated to pandemic response [5]. **2.
 Pergeseran Beban ke Investor** Elemen kesalahan secara spesifik mempengaruhi gugatan class action berdasarkan **penghilangan**—informasi yang tidak diungkapkan.
Burden Shift to Investors** The fault element specifically affects class actions based on **omissions**—information not disclosed.
 Dengan mengharuskan investor untuk membuktikan bahwa direksi lalai tentang materialitas, hukum menempatkan beban penemuan pada penggugat daripada mengharuskan perusahaan untuk membenarkan non-pengungkapan [6][7][8].
By requiring investors to prove directors were negligent about materiality, the law places discovery burden on plaintiffs rather than requiring companies to justify non-disclosure [6][7][8].
 Ini berdampak tidak proporsional pada: - Investor ritel yang kurang sumber daya untuk penemuan yang kompleks - Perusahaan yang membuat keputusan disengaja untuk tidak mengungkapkan informasi merugikan dengan harapan akan terselesaikan - Situasi di mana direksi hanya gagal mempertimbangkan apakah informasi bersifat material [7] **3.
This disproportionately affects: - Retail investors lacking resources for complex discovery - Companies making deliberate decisions not to disclose adverse information hoping it would resolve - Situations where directors simply failed to consider whether information was material [7] **3.
 Perbandingan dengan Yurisdiksi Lain** Regime pengungkapan berkelanjutan AS (Pasal 10(b) Securities Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5) memerlukan scienter (niat/pengetahuan) tetapi diinterpretasikan lebih luas daripada persyaratan Australia [kutipan akan memerlukan penelitian hukum sekuritas AS]. **4.
Comparison to Other Jurisdictions** The US continuous disclosure regime (Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5) requires scienter (intent/knowledge) but is interpreted more broadly than the Australian requirement [citations would require US securities law research]. **4.
 Posisi Regulasi Aktual ASIC** Meskipun Perbendaharaan ingin mengurangi gugatan class action, siaran pers ASIC 2020 menunjukkan regulator menginginkan perusahaan mengungkapkan lebih banyak informasi terkait COVID, bukan lebih sedikit [9][10].
ASIC's Actual Regulatory Position** Despite Treasury's desire to reduce class actions, ASIC's 2020 media releases showed the regulator wanted companies to disclose more COVID-related information, not less [9][10].
 Ini menunjukkan tujuan regulasi dan legislatif menyimpang—Perbendaharaan menginginkan perlindungan litigasi, ASIC menginginkan transparansi pengungkapan.
This suggests regulatory and legislative goals diverged—Treasury wanted litigation protection, ASIC wanted disclosure transparency.

SEBAGIAN BENAR

6.5

/ 10

Klaim secara faktual benar bahwa Koalisi melonggarkan aturan pengungkapan keuangan perusahaan selama pandemi dengan efek mengurangi eksposur pertanggungjawaban gugatan class action.
The claim is factually correct that the Coalition loosened corporate financial disclosure rules during the pandemic with the effect of reducing class action liability exposure.
 Namun, karakterisasi tersebut memerlukan klarifikasi: 1. **Yang Akurat:** Koalisi memang melonggarkan aturan pada Mei 2020 secara khusus untuk mengurangi risiko gugatan class action; perubahan tersebut dijadikan permanen pada Agustus 2021; perubahan tersebut secara khusus mempengaruhi litigasi oleh investor atas informasi yang dihilangkan [1][2][5] 2. **Yang Disederhanakan:** Aturan-aturan tersebut tidak "mencegah investor untuk mengajukan gugatan class action"—aturan-aturan tersebut membuat gugatan class action berdasarkan penghilangan informasi menjadi lebih sulit dengan mengharuskan penggugat membuktikan kelalaian.
However, the characterization requires clarification: 1. **What's Accurate:** The Coalition did loosen rules in May 2020 specifically to reduce class action risk; the changes were made permanent in August 2021; they do specifically affect litigation by investors over omitted information [1][2][5] 2. **What's Oversimplified:** The rules don't "prevent investors from lodging class actions"—they make omission-based class actions more difficult by requiring plaintiffs to prove negligence.
 Perusahaan masih sepenuhnya bertanggung jawab atas pernyataan palsu.
Companies are still fully liable for false statements.
 Investor masih dapat menggugat; litigasi menjadi lebih mahal [6][7][8] 3. **Yang Hilang:** Implementasi permanen pada Agustus 2021 adalah pilihan kebijakan yang disengaja yang tidak ada hubungannya dengan respons pandemi, memperluas cakupan relaksasi di luar keadaan krisis [5].
Investors can still sue; litigation is more costly [6][7][8] 3. **What's Missing:** The permanent implementation in August 2021 was a deliberate policy choice unrelated to pandemic response, expanding the relief's scope beyond crisis circumstances [5].
 Tinjauan Labor tahun 2023-2024 mempertahankan pembatasan tersebut, menunjukkan penerimaan lintas partai [12] **Penyataan ulang paling akurat dari klaim:** "Koalisi secara sementara melonggarkan aturan pengungkapan berkelanjutan selama pandemi (Mei 2020), membuatnya lebih sulit (tetapi tidak mustahil) bagi investor untuk mengajukan gugatan class action secara khusus atas informasi yang dihilangkan.
Labor's 2023-2024 review kept restrictions in place, suggesting cross-party acceptance [12] **The most accurate restatement of the claim:** "The Coalition temporarily loosened continuous disclosure rules during the pandemic (May 2020), making it harder (but not impossible) for investors to lodge class actions specifically over omitted information.
 Aturan-aturan sementara ini dijadikan permanen pada Agustus 2021 dengan memperpanjang elemen kesalahan (yang mengharuskan pembuktian kelalaian) ke semua pelanggaran pengungkapan berkelanjutan.
These temporary rules were made permanent in August 2021 by extending the fault element (requiring proof of negligence) to all continuous disclosure violations.
 Labor mempertahankan pembatasan ini ketika meninjau kembali pada 2023-2024."
Labor kept these restrictions in place when reviewing them in 2023-2024."

📚 SUMBER DAN KUTIPAN (12)

  1. 1
    corrs.com.au

    Corrs Chambers Westgarth - COVID-19: important changes to continuous disclosure provisions

    Corrs Com

  2. 2
    herbertsmithfreehills.com

    Herbert Smith Freehills - Australian Federal Government seeks to permanently ease continuous disclosure rules

    Herbertsmithfreehills

  3. 3
    Lexology - Temporary changes to Australia's continuous disclosure regime are here to stay

    Lexology - Temporary changes to Australia's continuous disclosure regime are here to stay

    The federal government has announced that temporary changes to continuous disclosure obligations imposed on listed companies under the Corporations…

    Lexology
  4. 4
    Clifford Chance - Caution! Temporary changes to Australian continuous disclosure regime likely to be ineffective

    Clifford Chance - Caution! Temporary changes to Australian continuous disclosure regime likely to be ineffective

    The temporary changes, which are in effect for six months from 26 May 2020, ignore a number of provisions commonly invoked by class action plaintiffs to pursue damages claims in relation to alleged continuous disclosure failings

    Clifford Chance
  5. 5
    Hamilton Locke - Parliament Passes Controversial Changes to Australia's Continuous Disclosure Laws

    Hamilton Locke - Parliament Passes Controversial Changes to Australia's Continuous Disclosure Laws

    The Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 has passed both houses of Parliament and is expected to receive Royal Assent sometime in August. It represents a significant shift in what consequences apply to companies and their directors and officers for a breach of the continuous disclosure laws. The continuous disclosure obligations remain

    Hamilton Locke - Smarter. Different.
  6. 6
    Allens - Will new continuous disclosure laws limit shareholder class actions?

    Allens - Will new continuous disclosure laws limit shareholder class actions?

    Following a period of temporary reform, Australia's continuous disclosure regime has been permanently amended in an effort to combat the upward trend of opportunistic shareholder class actions and to put downward pressure on premiums for directors and officers insurance

    Allens Com
  7. 7
    Jones Day - ASIC Enforcement of Australia's Continuous Disclosure Regime Gets a Boost

    Jones Day - ASIC Enforcement of Australia's Continuous Disclosure Regime Gets a Boost

    <div><p>The Australian federal government recently issued its response to the "report of the independent review of the changes to the continuous disclosure laws" prepared by Dr Kevin Lewis (Independent Review). In its response, the government accepted the key recommendations of the Independent Review, with the market now awaiting details of the introduction of amending legislation by the government, including likely timing.</p><p><strong>Recap of the Independent Review</strong></p><p>The government, as required under the <em>Corporations Act 2001</em> (Cth), commissioned the Independent Review into the changes introduced into Australia's continuous disclosure regime back in 2021, under the <em>Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No.1) Act 2021 </em>(Cth). The changes were expressly stated to be intended to reduce the incidence of opportunistic class actions against ASX-listed companies accused of not keeping the market informed of price sensitive information. The key aspect of the amendments was to introduce a fault element into the continuous disclosure laws, which meant that it was a requirement for a plaintiff or regulator to demonstrate that a disclosing entity or its officers had acted with either knowledge, recklessness or negligence, in breaching their continuous disclosure obligations for civil liability actions.</p><p>Despite commenting that the two-year review period since the changes was insufficient to draw meaningful evidence-based conclusions on many matters included in the Terms of Reference, the Independent Review made six recommendations—with the government subsequently announcing its support for four of the recommendations, and noting the remaining two.</p><p><strong>Primary Recommendations Arising From the Independent Review</strong></p><p>The government agreed with the following primary recommendations:</p><ul><li>Removal of the requirement that ASIC needs to prove in civil penalty proceedings for a breach of continuous disclosure laws that the disclosing entity acted knowingly, recklessly or negligently; and</li><li>Retention "for the time being" of the requirement that private litigants in civil compensation proceedings need to provide that the disclosing entity acted knowingly, recklessly or negligently. </li></ul><p><strong>Disclosing Entities Must Maintain a Strong Focus on Compliance With Their Continuous Disclosure Obligations—Removal of the "Fault Element" Coupled With ASIC's Enforcement Focus Could Lead to an Increase in ASIC Actions</strong></p><p>One of the primary findings of the Independent Review was that the 2021 Amendments have had, and are likely to continue to have, a negative impact on ASIC's enforcement of the continuous disclosure laws.</p><p>In its submission to the Independent Review, ASIC remarked that, in the context of issuing infringement notices, the need to ultimately prove the "fault element" (as part of bringing civil penalty proceedings for contravening conduct when an infringement notice penalty is not paid) was likely to reduce ASIC's appetite to use infringement notices for contraventions of continuous disclosure. Accordingly, the recommended removal of the "fault element" may encourage ASIC to increase its issuance of infringement notices.</p><p>The key takeaway of the removal of the fault element, if this recommendation is given effect by legislative changes, is that ASIC will be able to pursue enforcement action (including civil penalty proceedings) for unintentional or inadvertent breaches of Australia's continuous disclosure laws. It is therefore critical that disclosing entities renew their focus on their continuous disclosure obligations and related policies and processes.</p><p>Finally, companies, directors and officers should have regard to the proposed release in early 2025 of the <em>ASX Corporate Governance Council's fifth edition Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations</em>, which also makes recommendations in relation to continuous disclosure policy and process matters.</p><p><strong>Practical Effect of the 2021 Amendments on Continuous Disclosure-Related Class Actions Remains Undecided—"Fault Element" Retained (for Now)</strong></p><p>In its response, the government noted that a diversity of views were expressed and submissions received during the consultation period for the Independent Review. In that context, the Independent Review observed that the 2021 Amendments have had, and are likely to continue to have, little (if any) impact on the number and types of continuous disclosure class actions against disclosing entities and that meritorious continuous disclosure class actions are still likely to proceed.</p><p>The government agreed with the recommendation to retain—for the time being—the requirement for private litigants to prove the "fault element" in continuous disclosure-related class actions. </p><p>Given the comment that the review period was too short to discern any pattern arising from the 2021 Amendments in the number of continuous disclosure class actions, we expect the government to continue monitoring the situation for the emergence of any negative effect as a result of class action filings on disclosure standards. We expect both proponents and defendants of class actions to put forward different perspectives on the statistics and (any) causal links. </p><p><strong>Climate-Related Financial Disclosures Remain in Focus</strong></p><p>The consultation process for the Independent Review flushed out some concerns between the interplay between the 2021 Amendments and potential class action risks arising from the mandatory climate-related reporting requirements, particularly in relation to the forward-looking statements required by that regime. </p><p>The government's response to the Independent Review said that it had considered the implications of Recommendations 1 and 2 (as set out above) as part of its process to implement the climate-related disclosure legislation. The key point for companies, directors and officers is that they should remain alive to the prospect of enforcement action by ASIC utilizing the continuous disclosure regime, as well as other legislative provisions, in relation to their climate-related disclosures, once that regime comes into effect (which is expected to occur from 1 January 2025). The retention of the fault element for private litigants will provide some assistance to companies who may find themselves defending those claims, as will the transitional modified liability regime for private actions included in the incoming climate-related disclosure legislation.</p></div>

    Jonesday
  8. 8
    Addisons - Continuous disclosure regime: back to the future

    Addisons - Continuous disclosure regime: back to the future

    With discussions about amending the Corporations Act to strengthen ASIC’s powers to enforce continuous disclosure obligations, ASX-listed companies should review their internal policies regarding ongoing disclosure obligations.

    Addisons | Sydney Law Firm
  9. 9
    ASIC 20-157MR - Focuses for financial reporting under COVID-19 conditions

    ASIC 20-157MR - Focuses for financial reporting under COVID-19 conditions

    Fair, strong and efficient financial system for all Australians.

    Asic Gov
  10. 10
    ASIC 20-325MR - ASIC highlights focus areas for 31 December 2020 financial reports under COVID-19 conditions

    ASIC 20-325MR - ASIC highlights focus areas for 31 December 2020 financial reports under COVID-19 conditions

    Fair, strong and efficient financial system for all Australians.

    Asic Gov
  11. 11
    Australian Financial Review - About AFR

    Australian Financial Review - About AFR

    The Australian Financial Review reports the latest news from business, finance, investment and politics, updated in real time. It has a reputation for independent, award-winning journalism and is essential reading for the business and investor community.

    Australian Financial Review
  12. 12
    PDF

    Treasury.gov.au - Government response to Independent Review on continuous disclosure laws

    Treasury Gov • PDF Document

Metodologi Skala Penilaian

1-3: SALAH

Secara faktual salah atau fabrikasi jahat.

4-6: SEBAGIAN

Ada kebenaran tetapi konteks hilang atau menyimpang.

7-9: SEBAGIAN BESAR BENAR

Masalah teknis kecil atau masalah redaksi.

10: AKURAT

Terverifikasi sempurna dan adil secara kontekstual.

Metodologi: Penilaian ditentukan melalui referensi silang catatan pemerintah resmi, organisasi pemeriksa fakta independen, dan dokumen sumber primer.

Previous: C0154 Next: C0156