The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has defended its reporting of alleged war crimes in a defamation case by ex-commando Heston Russell, saying the debate over whether its stories were in the public interest ārises well above truthā.Ā
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has told a trial judge that superannuation trustee Diversa canāt hide behind outsourcing arrangements to explain its alleged failures to oversee a now-banned financial adviser accused of luring vulnerable customers into signing up to Diversa accounts.
Auditor Ernst & Young has filed cross-claims against Blue Sky in a shareholder class action accusing the collapsed investment firm of misleading shareholders by misstating its assets under management.
A judge has sided with National Tiles founder Frank Walker over the privilege status of advice from his lawyers in a case by a former director alleging Walker falsified minutes of a crucial company board meeting, saying the evidence on its face did not suggest the minutes had been fabricated.
An investment manager has been arrested and charged with providing prospective investors with forged portfolio reports.
A source for ABC articles over alleged war crimes that are at the centre of a defamation case by ex-commando Heston Russell told reporters his memory of the events was “hazy”, a court heard Friday.
Collapsed vocational education provider Phoenix Institute and its marketing arm have been hit with a record $438 million penalty after a judge found they acted unconscionably and with “callous indifference” by enticing vulnerable consumers to enrol in unsuitable courses with promises of free laptops.
Building materials giant James Hardie Industries is facing a class action alleging it breached its disclosure obligations over its adjusted net income forecasts for the 2023 financial year.
A former Cushman & Wakefield director is appealing a ruling released Friday that upheld a non-compete restraint in her employment contract with the real estate services giant.
The security sum sought by Monster Energy from an inventor suing the beverage giant for patent infringement was “manifestly excessive”, a judge has said, and was based on an estimate of costs that included the fees of three solicitors and two barristers at an interlocutory hearing.