Finally, a disclosure should highlight critical, information. These may include information, on benefits and risks (ASIC 2011b, p. 11-25).
They are consistent with ASIC own disclosure principles because all of them are made to shield the concern of the issuer and the potential customer who wants to buy the products. The regulation on outlining fees and cost for multiple products for instance is consistent with the good principle on disclosure of all the pertinent information by the issuers. This is also consistent with the principle on the omission of prescribed information. There are close ties between the ASIC Regulation principles, and their own Good Disclosure Principles.
In addition, the principles like the RG are used for PDSs for investment products (97.56) requiring the issuer to split fee disclosure in case of a contributory mortgage (like general and specific fee). The principle advises that all the fee information required should be set out in the supplement copy of the PDS. This makes it in line with the third principle demands the disclosure be structured in a way that promotes understanding (RG 168.71). When a customer reads the information in the supplementary, it will create an understanding. This is because the information will be complete, making the regulation again consistent with the second principle (RG 168.64), which guides that a disclosure should be complete and relevant to the customer.
The relevant parts of Product Disclosure Statement that comply with the Regulatory Guide (RG) key principles in Question 1 include the part of Investments and risk. This is...
Australia's Corporation Act 2004 Australia Corporations Corporation Act 2004 The purpose of this research is to investigate the Corporations Act 2004 (Cth) in relation to the protection it provides for investors of non-profit corporations. Through research of the Trade Practices Act, current case law and the Australian Investment and Securities Commission provide an overview of what has changed in the regulations for corporations in Australia in 2004 thus far. Australian Supreme Court sated
Corporate Governance in Harris Scarfe: Harris Scarfe Department Stores is a company that was founded in 1849 in Adelaide, South Australia and housed various major South Australian department stores. The history of the organization is traced to a period when the founding partners John C. Lanyon and George Peter Harris arrived in this region to institute an ironmongery and hardware business. In the initial years, the company carried out its business
(Millstein, 2005) Since United States and Australia are countries which are already considered to be globally competitive that has attained its almost perfect status in the world market, developing countries are basically taking into account every step that they make for which they might soon adapt to attain the same position in the global context. Therefore, studying both countries' corporate governance is necessary in order for other developing countries to
There is no doubt that Macquaries used its knowledge of the internal workings of Alinta to make decisions about whether or not to involve its own finances. Qantas and Geoff Dixon attempt to avoid Alinta's problems by keeping Dixon away from the actual buyout dealings. However, the sizeable payout and other financial perks given to Dixon, especially in light of the other corporate abuses going on, seems suspect at best.
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now