The penalty quantum for non-compliance with corporate disclosure: solace for the market

Larelle (Ellie) Chapple, Thu Phuong Truong, Michelle Welsh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

In June 2014 a significant event happened in securities regulation and compliance – the New Zealand market operator used its enforcement power to discipline a major corporate player with a penalty (NZ$150,000) for its breach of the disclosure rules. The market disclosure rules have been in operation since 2002 but until then there had been no instances where compliance has been enforced so overtly and to such a magnitude. Australia operates a similar system of disclosure regulation to New Zealand, but its enforcement record stands in stark contrast, where around the same time, a major Australia company agreed to a penalty of AU$1.2 million for two contraventions of similar laws. This article reviews the New Zealand regulatory landscape in mandatory disclosure and compliance and reflects on the relevant market operators’ and regulators’ power and appetite for enforcement. These contrasting examples raise interesting questions in corporate law as to the effectiveness at enforcing market discipline in relation to disclosure, and whether quantum matters.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)292-306
Number of pages15
JournalCompany and Securities Law Journal
Volume36
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Cite this

@article{4babd1b0b73d43a7837766061bd31697,
title = "The penalty quantum for non-compliance with corporate disclosure: solace for the market",
abstract = "In June 2014 a significant event happened in securities regulation and compliance – the New Zealand market operator used its enforcement power to discipline a major corporate player with a penalty (NZ$150,000) for its breach of the disclosure rules. The market disclosure rules have been in operation since 2002 but until then there had been no instances where compliance has been enforced so overtly and to such a magnitude. Australia operates a similar system of disclosure regulation to New Zealand, but its enforcement record stands in stark contrast, where around the same time, a major Australia company agreed to a penalty of AU$1.2 million for two contraventions of similar laws. This article reviews the New Zealand regulatory landscape in mandatory disclosure and compliance and reflects on the relevant market operators’ and regulators’ power and appetite for enforcement. These contrasting examples raise interesting questions in corporate law as to the effectiveness at enforcing market discipline in relation to disclosure, and whether quantum matters.",
author = "Chapple, {Larelle (Ellie)} and Truong, {Thu Phuong} and Michelle Welsh",
year = "2018",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "292--306",
journal = "Company and Securities Law Journal",
issn = "0729-2775",
publisher = "Thomson Reuters (Prous Science)",
number = "4",

}

The penalty quantum for non-compliance with corporate disclosure : solace for the market. / Chapple, Larelle (Ellie); Truong, Thu Phuong; Welsh, Michelle.

In: Company and Securities Law Journal, Vol. 36, No. 4, 2018, p. 292-306.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The penalty quantum for non-compliance with corporate disclosure

T2 - solace for the market

AU - Chapple, Larelle (Ellie)

AU - Truong, Thu Phuong

AU - Welsh, Michelle

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - In June 2014 a significant event happened in securities regulation and compliance – the New Zealand market operator used its enforcement power to discipline a major corporate player with a penalty (NZ$150,000) for its breach of the disclosure rules. The market disclosure rules have been in operation since 2002 but until then there had been no instances where compliance has been enforced so overtly and to such a magnitude. Australia operates a similar system of disclosure regulation to New Zealand, but its enforcement record stands in stark contrast, where around the same time, a major Australia company agreed to a penalty of AU$1.2 million for two contraventions of similar laws. This article reviews the New Zealand regulatory landscape in mandatory disclosure and compliance and reflects on the relevant market operators’ and regulators’ power and appetite for enforcement. These contrasting examples raise interesting questions in corporate law as to the effectiveness at enforcing market discipline in relation to disclosure, and whether quantum matters.

AB - In June 2014 a significant event happened in securities regulation and compliance – the New Zealand market operator used its enforcement power to discipline a major corporate player with a penalty (NZ$150,000) for its breach of the disclosure rules. The market disclosure rules have been in operation since 2002 but until then there had been no instances where compliance has been enforced so overtly and to such a magnitude. Australia operates a similar system of disclosure regulation to New Zealand, but its enforcement record stands in stark contrast, where around the same time, a major Australia company agreed to a penalty of AU$1.2 million for two contraventions of similar laws. This article reviews the New Zealand regulatory landscape in mandatory disclosure and compliance and reflects on the relevant market operators’ and regulators’ power and appetite for enforcement. These contrasting examples raise interesting questions in corporate law as to the effectiveness at enforcing market discipline in relation to disclosure, and whether quantum matters.

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 292

EP - 306

JO - Company and Securities Law Journal

JF - Company and Securities Law Journal

SN - 0729-2775

IS - 4

ER -