PoliticalClaims.au

### The Claim Oversimplifies the Mechanism

The claim states the rules "prevented investors from lodging class actions." This is inaccurate.

Investors can still lodge class actions; the changes made it **harder and more expensive** to succeed in claims based on **omitted information** [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]

### The Distinction: Omissions vs. Misstatements

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.

### Duration Beyond Pandemic

The claim references pandemic-era loosening, which is accurate for the initial May 2020 change.

However, the permanent August 2021 amendment applies **to all future continuous disclosure matters indefinitely**, not just pandemic-period disclosures [5].

This expanded the scope far beyond the intended temporary relief, though this expansion occurred through permanent legislation rather than an extension of emergency measures.

### ASIC's Contradictory Focus

Notably, ASIC's media releases during 2020 show the regulator actually wanted **more** disclosure of COVID-related impacts, not less [9][10].