Most Recent
Auditor BDO has asked the court to stay ASX-listed software company Dubber’s negligence suit over $26.6 million in alleged missing funds while a parallel case by ASIC over alleged false and misleading financial reports is on foot.
Confronting a workload increase of 70%, blamed in large part by the growth in use of generative AI, the Fair Work Commission is proposing significant changes to how it operates, including its own use of AI.
In the first suit of its kind, the ACCC has taken Amazon Australia to court, alleging children’s backpacks for sale on its online marketplace through a third-party seller do not comply with mandatory button battery rules.
Star's former group general counsel has told a judge she should not have to pay a $1.1 million fine for breaching her directors duties because she has suffered “extra-curial detriment” that includes unemployment.
An ASX statement from budget airline Rex that was optimistic about its 2023 profit prospects should have been corrected by April, ASIC has told a judge, disputing claims that the statement was not a forecast but merely an expression of what the board hoped for.
The eSafety Commissioner has struck back at Elon Musk-owned X Corp's claims that it should not have to comply with a new online safety standard when it is already subject to rules for social media companies.
DC Comics is appealing a decision that found 'kryptonite diet' could be registered as a trade mark because the Superman-derived word has become somewhat generic, a ruling that's kryptonite for the Warner Bros-owned company which relies heavily on monetising its IP.
ASIC is seeking a $1.3 million fine against Star’s former CEO Matthias Bekier and a $1.1 million fine against ex-general counsel Paula Martin for breaching their duties by failing to warn the casino operator's board about money laundering risks.
Two investment firms have been hit with combined penalties of nearly $100,000 for failing to pay infringement notices issued by the financial crimes regulator.
Westpac has been hit with a $26 million penalty -- just shy of the $30 million sought by ASIC -- for failing to respond to online hardship applications on time on 277 occasions, in conduct described as “grossly negligent”.