A reminder of ASX updates to Guidance Note 8

We reiterate the importance for ASX listed entities to familiarise themselves with the following important amendments as well as procedural changes to Guidance Note 8.

We recommend that entities adopt adequate processes to enable them to be responsive and notify ASX immediately following any key and material developments affecting their entity, particularly in response to the changes in Guidance Note 8.

With effect as of 5 June 2021 are updates by ASX to Guidance Note 8 in relation to the following key changes:

  1. Full disclosure of market sensitive information concerning market sensitive contracts, as detailed in section 4.15, Listing Rule 3.1
  2. Additional explanatory material to the reasonable person test in connection with Listing Rule 3.1A, as detailed in section 5.9
  3. A new section 7.9 dealing with cancelling, deferring, or reducing a dividend distribution or interest payment
  4. A new section 7.10 dealing with ramping announcements
Contents of announcements guideline (Section 4.15, Listing Rule 3.1)

ASX has confirmed its position on naming counterparts to market sensitive contracts following the decision in ASIC v Big Star Energy Limited (No 3) [2020] FCA 1442.

ASX requires that “where there is little or no information regarding the counterparty in the public domain, an announcement is to include a description of the counterparty as well as a summary of the due diligence undertaken by the listed entity on the counterparty’s financial capacity to perform its obligations in relation to the transaction and other capacity to perform their obligations in relation to the transaction” (page 26, Guidance Note 8).

A new footnote 110 has been included in Guidance Note 8 to clarify a problematic area “for some listed entities” being a failure “to disclose when a previously announced material customer contract does not proceed or is terminated (i.e. only disclosing good news, not bad news). Generally speaking, if information about the entry of a customer contract is sufficiently material to justify its disclosure, ASX’s starting assumption will be that information about its failure to proceed or termination is also sufficiently material to justify its disclosure, unless the entity can make a clear and convincing argument to the contrary.”

Listed entities should be proactive in obtaining adequate information about their counterparties before entering into market sensitive contracts and publish corrective announcements where significant changes occur in relation to “material customer contracts”, as the ASX may suspend trading in the entity’s securities if insufficient levels of information are disclosed.

The reasonable person test (Section 5.9, Listing Rule 3.1A.3)

ASX provides further guidance on the “carve outs” relied on by listed entities to justify non-disclosure.

In summary, the ASX requires announcements made by listed entities be materially accurate, complete and not misleading in accordance with Listing Rule 3.1. Noting that the reasonable person test would be satisfied if information falls within the prescribed categories in Listing Rule 3.1A.1 and that meets the confidentiality requirements in Listing Rule 3.1A.2 whereby such information can be excluded from an announcement made by a listed entity.

Page 41 of Guidance Note 8 includes two examples, which would trigger disclosure by the listed entity and displace the above general principle as follows:

  1. if a listed entity “cherry picked” its disclosure by making announcements in respect of “good information” as it is likely to have a positive effect on the value of the securities but not bad information as it is likely to have a negative effect on the value of the securities; or
  2. if the excluded confidential information is likely to make another disclosure made by the listed entity under Listing Rule 3.1 misleading, incomplete and/or inaccurate.

Accordingly, ASX’s additional guidance to listed entities in relation to its two examples above is unsurprising in that ASX requires “that an announcement under Listing Rule 3.1” “be materially accurate, complete and not misleading. Listing Rule 3.1A.3 operates to ensure that a listed entity cannot rely on a particular piece of information falling within a carve-out to immediate disclosure under Listing Rule 3.1A.1 and satisfying the confidentiality requirements in Listing Rule 3.1A.2, to justify excluding that information from an announcement to the market under Listing Rule 3.1, if the failure to include that information would render the announcement materially inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. A reasonable person clearly would expect a listed entity, acting responsibly and in accordance with its statutory obligation not to mislead or deceive, to disclose the excluded information” in a particular situation.

Introduction of section 7.9 – Cancelling, deferring or reducing a dividend, distribution or interest payment

The new section 7.9 requires any announcement under Listing Rule 3.21(a)(ii) to include an explanation satisfactory to ASX of the entity’s reasons for cancelling, deferring or reducing a dividend, distribution or interest payment.

“ASX will expect this explanation to be reasonably detailed and to justify in reasonably clear terms why the entity considers it necessary to cancel, defer or reduce the dividend or distribution after it has been announced to the market and the market has traded on the expectation of receiving the dividend or distribution. A simple statement along the lines of “the board thought it prudent to [cancel/defer/reduce] the [dividend/distribution] in the current economic climate” will not be sufficient. In an appropriate case, ASX may ask the entity to include in the explanation a discussion of any alternatives the entity’s board considered to cancelling, deferring or reducing the dividend or distribution” (page 64, Guidance Note 8).

Introduction of section 7.10 Ramping announcements

ASX has also expressed concern that listed entities are making market announcements to “ramp up” the price of their securities particularly around contracts without providing proper disclosure to the market concerning the details of the contract. If such behaviour is suspected, listed entities are at risk of having their securities suspended from trading and be issued with a query letter asking numerous questions, including asking the entity to verify whether the announcement was marked as market sensitive when it was filed on MAP, as well as what information was considered by the entity as being market sensitive. The ASX may also ask the entity to explain its purpose if the announcement was not marked as market sensitive, as well as requiring an entity to identify the reasonable grounds on any material assumptions or qualifications if an entity’s announcement includes a revenue projection.

Listed entities may be required to provide a copy of the contract relating to their announcement about contracts to the ASX to verify compliance with Listing Rules disclosure obligations. If ASX forms the view that disclosure was a ramping announcement, the ASX may require the entity to publish a corrective announcement about the ramping announcement being incomplete and misleading and that investors should not make investment decisions based on the ramping announcement.

Share
Email
Print

Get in touch

With us personally, it is just one more way we’re different.

Danielle Snell

CO-FOUNDER AND MANAGING PARTNER

.

Robert McGirr

CO-FOUNDER & PARTNER

.

Aggie Vlahos

PARTNER

.

"

"Danielle guided us through the entire process with confidence and transparency, ensuring we always felt informed and supported."

Insurance Law

Plaintiff

We had an outstanding experience working with Danielle. From the very beginning, she demonstrated exceptional professionalism, clear communication, and a genuine understanding of our situation. She guided us through the entire process with confidence and transparency, ensuring we always felt informed and supported.

What truly stood out was her ability to achieve a fast resolution while securing the exact outcome we were hoping for. Her expertise and strategic approach made a stressful situation significantly easier to manage.

Equally impressive was Danielle’s compassion and friendliness. She took the time to listen, showed real empathy, and made us feel like more than just another case. We always felt valued and reassured

"

"Danielle kept me well-informed and involved, ensuring I was aware of all my options throughout the legal process"

Insurance Law

Plaintiff

Danielle Snell and the Elit Lawyers team acted for me on a high value insurance claim after insurers denied me all cover after my aircraft was damaged during the filming of a Hollywood movie. Given that insurers denied me all cover and offered to pay zero, with Danielle and team’s guidance, I issued proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria – Insurance List against the insurers involved. Danielle kept me well-informed and involved, ensuring I was aware of all my options throughout the legal process.

This was a stressful period for me, but I always felt confident and supported . I was happy to resolve the case prior to trial which involved a pay-out by the insurers. I felt confident to take on the insurers with the representation and support of Elit Lawyers and it proved to be the right move as I was ultimately paid out under my policy which was very different to the insurer’s original decision to pay me nothing.

"

"Within days, the podcast episode was removed and I was also given an apology, undertaking and some payment towards my legal costs"

Defamation – CEO

Plaintiff

I highly recommend Danielle and her team to anyone needing to fight defamation matters, they achieve results! I was defamed on a podcast which was published on various forums. The Elit team prepared detailed Concerns Notices to the original publisher and also to the podcast operator and other forums the podcast was published on.  Within days, the podcast episode was removed and I was also given an apology, undertaking and some payment towards my legal costs. Thank you to the Elit team for helping me with this personal matter.

– CEO 

"

"On advice from Danielle and Mark, I sued the insurer in the Federal Court Insurance List and a settlement was reached within a couple of months!"

Insurance Law

Plaintiff

One night, thieves broke into my home through the garage and stole my car whilst my wife and kids and myself were all in the house. They then abandoned and set the car on fire, resulting in a total loss. My insurance claim was denied because the car was parked in the driveway instead of the garage. On advice from Danielle and Mark, I sued the insurer in the Federal Court Insurance List and a settlement was reached within a couple of months!

"

"Aggie kept me well informed at every step and her supportive and approachable manner made a very stressful period in my life far easier to navigate."

Family Law – Property

Plaintiff

I’m very thankful that my financial planner referred me to Aggie Vlahos. She guided me through negotiating, documenting and completing my family law property settlement with my ex. Aggie kept me well informed at every step and her supportive and approachable manner made a very stressful period in my life far easier to navigate. Would absolutely recommend.

 

"

"I was grateful for Aggie’s expert advice, patience, and support during my family law court case"

Family Law

Plaintiff

Aggie acted for me in relation to my litigated family law matter – during an intense and difficult time in my life.  I was grateful for Aggie’s expert advice, patience, and support during my family law court case which we were able to resolve positively at mediation. I would strongly recommend Aggie and her team to anybody needing legal assistance with their family law matter.

 

Can't find what you're looking for?

Search