ASIC abandons One.Tel appeal

By Ry Crozier on Mar 1, 2010 12:06 PM
Filed under Telco/ISP

Cost and time key factors.

The Australian Securities and Investment Commission will not appeal the dismissal of its case against executives of the failed junior telco One.Tel.

The decision means ASIC will be up for a legal bill in excess of $14 million.

ASIC chairman Tony D'Aloisio said that "public interest considerations, cost and [the passing] of time were key factors in deciding not to appeal".

"We have reached the view that the Judge's decision turns on questions of fact and that there are no important points of law which should be reviewed on appeal," he said.

"Further, the case concerns conduct which occurred in 2001. A successful appeal would most likely result in a retrial causing a further significant delay to the final resolution of the matter."

The NSW Supreme Court dismissed civil proceedings against One.Tel founder Jodee Rich and its finance director Mark Silbermann in November last year.

Rich and Silbermann had been taken to task over their role as directors in the collapse of mobile services company One.Tel.

In December, the corporate watchdog lodged a notice of its intention to appeal the ruling.

4 comments in this discussion

"Hmmm, Not sure if I can accept the view that there was no case. Clearly improper behaviour in terms of disclosure to the market occurred. Did the parties concerned; Murdoch, Packer, Silbermann ..."

By iflowboy

Tags

asic, onetel, legal, bill, silbermann, jodee, rich

ASIC to pay $14m legal bill for One.Tel

Revealed: 2012 e-government award winners

SAP gobbles Ariba in $4.3b cloud play

CIOs kept out of merger talks

Breaking Stories

Australia shares $2bn Square Kilometre Array

NSW retains right to veto data centre co-tenants

Optus to launch federated APAC cloud

NBN Co expands wireless trials

Aussie unis flock to international video service

Comments: 4

Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) Mar 1, 2010 6:05 PM	How does a journalist get to regurgitate such crap. At the least, the sub-headline should not have been "Cost and time key factors" but rather "ASIC cites time and cost". The truth of the matter is that the judge clearly said ASIC had gone after the wrong parties. Had PBL+News not cancelled the rights issue at the eleventh hour, One.Tel would have had funds to meet all liabilities as they arose. As I posted here at the time of the original judgement, any appeal would produce the same result. Congratulations to ASIC for accepting that it was not worth expending any further public funds chasing the wrong parties. Also, for different reasons, ASIC would not have succeeded against Messrs Packer & Murdoch. The facts were just complex. The ability for PBL+News to not proceed with the rights issue meant "no-one defrauded anyone" as Rich et al never knew the rights issue would not go ahead, and Packer & Murdoch were not misleading anyone by intending to proceed with the rights issue, up until the last minute. In short, the contingent nature of the arrangement left all in the lurch, but no-one had intentionally defrauded anyone. ASIC should have accepted this at the outset and dropped the case. And if it wasn't clear at the outset, it should have been clear the moment Packer Jnr did his Alan Bond impersonation in the witness box (Klink's "I know NOthing!" in the form of "I can't recall"). One.Tel was very public, but was not in the category of intentional scams for which ASIC can get convictions.
Ace Mar 1, 2010 9:23 PM	I'm sure Ry was making it simplified so that bozos like me could understand such complex issues.
iflowboy Mar 2, 2010 11:37 AM	Hmmm, Not sure if I can accept the view that there was no case. Clearly improper behaviour in terms of disclosure to the market occurred. Did the parties concerned; Murdoch, Packer, Silbermann & Rich have knowledge of what was going to happen before the market/investors were aware of the abandonment of the rights issue? Are we to believe that James and Lachlan had a last minute, conclusive, conversation on the matter that split second before the market was advised of the action taken? It is onerous on directors to immediately notify ASIC of any significant change to a public company's ongoing financial position. Did the directors fulfil this fudiciary duty in this case? There was a case. There were guilty parties. People were effectively deceived. Someone should be held accountable. The circumstancial nuances or time factor imeding the tabling of supporting evidence do not excuse the crime.
iflowboy Mar 2, 2010 11:37 AM	Hmmm, Not sure if I can accept the view that there was no case. Clearly improper behaviour in terms of disclosure to the market occurred. Did the parties concerned; Murdoch, Packer, Silbermann & Rich have knowledge of what was going to happen before the market/investors were aware of the abandonment of the rights issue? Are we to believe that James and Lachlan had a last minute, conclusive, conversation on the matter that split second before the market was advised of the action taken? It is onerous on directors to immediately notify ASIC of any significant change to a public company's ongoing financial position. Did the directors fulfil this fudiciary duty in this case? There was a case. There were guilty parties. People were effectively deceived. Someone should be held accountable. The circumstancial nuances or time factor imeding the tabling of supporting evidence do not excuse the crime.