You web browser may not be properly supported. To use this site and all its features we recommend using the latest versions of Chrome, Safari or Firefox

In October 2012, the High Court of Australia handed down its decision in relation to allegations made by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) against Fortescue Metals Group (Fortescue) and its CEO, Mr Andrew Forrest.

The Court found in favour of Fortescue and Mr Forrest, concluding that neither party had breached the Corporations Act and that their conduct in the case had been “neither false nor misleading”.

The significance of this decision goes beyond the parties involved, as it provides considerable clarification regarding allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct in the ASX announcements of publicly listed companies.

The Facts

In 2004, Fortescue released three separate ASX announcements (the Announcements) stating that it had entered into “binding contract[s]” with state-owned Chinese companies in relation to building a railway, port and mine for one of Fortescue’s proposed iron ore mining sites in Western Australia. In 2005, it was revealed in the financial media that these agreements were, in fact, not legally binding, resulting in a significant (but short-lived) drop in Fortescue’s share price.

In 2006, ASIC initiated proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia, alleging that, by making the Announcements, Fortescue had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct, Mr Forrest had breached his duties as a director of the company, and both parties had failed to comply with their continuous disclosure obligations under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

The Federal Court initially found in favour of Fortescue and Mr Forrest, the Trial Judge finding that, while Fortescue had offered a statement of opinion as to the enforceability of the relevant contracts that was incorrect, that opinion had been honestly and reasonably held.

ASIC appealed the Trial Judge’s decision, and the Full Court of the Federal Court overturned the primary judgment, finding that Fortescue (and consequently Mr Forrest) had contravened the Corporations Act by making misleading and deceptive statements to the market. Once those misleading and deceptive statements had been made, Fortescue and Mr Forrest’s failure to correct those statements constituted a breach of their respective obligations of continuous disclosure of material information to the market. The Full Court’s decision provided substantial guidance on when company information is likely to be considered ‘material’ and hence require public disclosure.

Fortescue and Mr Forrest subsequently appealed the Full Court’s decision to the High Court.

The High Court Decision

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding in favour of Fortescue and Mr Forrest.

The majority judgment, delivered by four of the five sitting judges, found that the intended audience of Fortescue’s ASX announcements was professional investors. The Court held that this sophisticated audience would not interpret Fortescue’s statements as assertions of a legal fact that the agreements with Chinese companies would be legally enforceable by Australian courts. Instead, that audience would understand that the companies had

“...had made an agreement which said that the bargain was, and was intended by the parties to be, legally binding”.

Unlike the lower courts, the majority of the High Court ruled that the intention of the person making the relevant statement is irrelevant to the question of whether the statement is misleading. The only relevant consideration is how the statement would be interpreted by its intended audience. Since, in the opinion of the Court, Fortescue’s spectators would not consider the announcements to be declarations regarding contractual enforceability, the statements did not mislead investors.

The majority judgment stressed that its finding turned on the particular facts of the case, and noted that ASIC had not tendered sufficient evidence as to what Fortescue’s intended audience would have understood the relevant announcements to mean, instead operating on the assumption that Fortescue’s investors would have adopted a lawyerly, forensic approach to the interpretation of company statements. Implicitly, the majority’s findings may have been different if ASIC had put on evidence and sought to prove that the audience for Fortescue’s announcements would have interpreted a reference to “binding contracts” as a reference to enforceability under Australian law.

The minority judgment of Heydon J arrived at the same conclusions as the majority, but using different reasoning. In Heydon J’s opinion, Fortescue’s statements were statements of opinion which were honestly and reasonably held. Accordingly, Heydon J’s reasoning was closer to that of the Trial Judge than it was to that of the majority judgment.

Both the majority and the minority judgments, having found that Fortescue and Mr Forrest did not engage in misleading and deceptive conduct, were not required to consider whether those parties had then breached their obligations of continuous disclosure, or to elaborate on the nature of the test for those obligations. Consequently, the Full Court’s statements in respect of continuous disclosure obligations remain good law. This includes the Full Court’s finding that, if a company makes a misleading statement, then it is likely that the fact that the statement was misleading will itself be material information requiring disclosure.

The Lesson

The High Court’s decision has provided significant clarification regarding the test for claims of misleading and deceptive conduct (and, to a lesser extent, contraventions of continuous disclosure requirements) for publicly listed companies. These developments are relevant to both listed companies and those people who read and interpret ASX announcements.

Of particular note is the approach adopted by the majority to identifying misleading and deceptive conduct. Rather than considering whether the statements in question were intended to be statements of opinion or of fact, the Court instead considered what the intended audience of the announcements would have understood the statements to mean, and hence whether the audience would have been misled by them. Further, both the majority and minority judgments proceeded on the assumption that the people reading these announcements would have a high degree of business nous and commercial scepticism, which they would apply when reading ASX announcements.

Arguably, the High Court’s decision lessens the burden on public companies to be clear and accurate in their statements, and instead shifts responsibility towards market participants, assuming that they will utilise their commercial experience to correctly interpret ambiguous company announcements. However, claims brought by investors for misleading and deceptive conduct will be more likely to succeed if the claimants ensure they provide compelling evidence of what they and other market participants in fact understood the relevant announcements to mean.

It is also important to note that a company’s obligations of continuous disclosure are separate from the requirement not to engage in misleading and deceptive conduct. Even if a company’s statement is found not to be misleading (and hence not require correction), information which would colour, constrain or contextualise that statement may still require disclosure if a reasonable investor would consider that information to be ‘material’. However, as ASIC did not make a separate allegation of contravention of continuous disclosure obligations of this nature, the High Court was not required to consider this issue.

The contents of this blog post are considered accurate as at the date of publication. However the applicable laws may be subject to change, thereby affecting the accuracy of the article. The information contained in this blog post is of a general nature only and is not specific to anyone’s personal circumstances. Please seek legal advice before acting on any of the information contained in this post.

Thank you for your feedback.

Related blog posts

Consumer and the Law
Liar loans: how mortgage brokers are putting clients at risk

The term ‘liar loans’ has been coined on the back of the Banking Royal Commission. This is because studies have shown almost 40 per cent of loan applications completed through mortgage brokers contained at least one factually incorrect statement. Whether mortgage brokers are providing lenders with incorrect information, or information that is out-of-date, they are putting themselves – and their clients – at risk. A recent study conducted by the Consumer Credit Legal Centre in New South Wales identified some mortgage brokers were breaking the law when filling out loan applications for their clients. Common examples included brokers suggesting their clients provide a different answer...

Planning desk close up documentresize
Consumer and the Law
How to lodge a complaint with Australian Financial Complaints Authority

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) acts as the middleperson between financial firms and consumers or small businesses, offering free and independent dispute resolution services. It deals with complaints about financial advice, insurance, banking and superannuation products and services. While the time limit to lodge a complaint to AFCA is usually between two and six years, the Australian Government recently created the opportunity for those with complaints up to 10 years old to come forward. This means consumers and small businesses have until 30 June 2020 to lodge complaints dating back to 1 January 2008. To lodge a complaint, you must follow AFCA’s process. It is...

How to lodge a complaint with Australian Financial Complaints Authority
Business Law
Proposed Changes to the Franchising Code of Conduct

Franchising is big business in Australia, with approximately 1,120 franchise systems and 79,000 franchise units operating nationally1. As franchising is a diverse sector with characteristics that are unique from other business models, franchises are governed by a mandatory Franchising Code of Conduct (Franchising Code).2 The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services recently completed an inquiry into the operation and effectiveness of the Franchising Code and has released the Fairness in Franchising Report (Report).3 Some of the key findings and recommendations of the report are discussed below. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government establish an...

Waitress In Black Apron Upload

We're here to help

Start your online claim check now. Or, if you have a question, get in touch with our team.