In brief — Restrict­ed access aimed at unso­licit­ed share offers

The gov­ern­ment recent­ly brought into force new laws reg­u­lat­ing access to share reg­is­ters. Although aimed pri­mar­i­ly at unso­licit­ed share offers, the Cor­po­ra­tions Amend­ment (No 1) Act 2010 restricts access to reg­is­ters for a far wider range of users.


How the Act works 

Pre­vi­ous­ly any per­son could access infor­ma­tion from a share reg­is­ter, pro­vid­ed they paid the nec­es­sary fee. The only legal lim­i­ta­tion was that they could not sub­se­quent­ly use the infor­ma­tion for a pur­pose unre­lat­ed to the shareholding.

Under the new Act, a per­son who applies to access the reg­is­ter will have to dis­close to the com­pa­ny the pur­pose for which they intend to use the infor­ma­tion. If that is a pre­scribed pur­pose”, the com­pa­ny will have the right to refuse access.

What is a pre­scribed purpose? 

The Cor­po­ra­tions Amend­ment Reg­u­la­tions 2010 (No. 10) define a pre­scribed pur­pose as:

  • Spe­cif­ic groups in the com­mu­ni­ty (such as char­i­ties) solic­it­ing dona­tions from shareholders
  • Bro­kers solic­it­ing clients 
  • Obtain­ing infor­ma­tion about the per­son­al wealth of clients
  • Mak­ing off-mar­ket offers to pur­chase secu­ri­ties (oth­er than for a takeover of an unlist­ed company)
Prob­lem­at­ic con­se­quences of the new laws

The new rules tip the bal­ance in favour of com­pa­nies. In prac­tice, com­pa­nies should be enti­tled to block approach­es by share raiders like David Tweed. How­ev­er, it may also allow com­pa­nies to block inves­ti­ga­tions by finan­cial jour­nal­ists, lead­ing to con­cerns this may give com­pa­nies a con­ve­nient means of obstruct­ing legit­i­mate media inquiries. 

For more infor­ma­tion on this sub­ject, please see Crack­down aimed at David Tweed could have unex­pect­ed con­se­quences and Pub­lic access to com­pa­ny reg­is­ters — the prop­er pur­pose test.

For fur­ther infor­ma­tion please contact:

If you would like to repub­lish this arti­cle, it is gen­er­al­ly approved, but pri­or to doing so please con­tact the Mar­ket­ing team at marketing@​swaab.​com.​au. This arti­cle is not legal advice and the views and com­ments are of a gen­er­al nature only. This arti­cle is not to be relied upon in sub­sti­tu­tion for detailed legal advice.

Publications

Putting the West­pac Work­ing From Home Case in Perspective

Can employ­ees real­ly work from home if they want to? In a recent Fair Work case an employ­ee won the right to…

The risk of builder insol­ven­cy mid way through a con­struc­tion project is real (and will prob­a­bly be expensive)

Intro­duc­tionThis arti­cle pro­vides guid­ance to those under­tak­ing con­struc­tion works and iden­ti­fies a num­ber of con­tract pro­vi­sions which, if includ­ed in the…

Cross-Com­pa­ny Secu­ri­ty and Liq­uida­tor Chal­lenges: Full Fed­er­al Court Restores Cer­tain­ty in CEG Direct Secu­ri­ties v Coop­er [2025] FCAFC 47

A sig­nif­i­cant deci­sion from the Full Fed­er­al Court has clar­i­fied the lim­its of liq­uida­tors’ pow­ers to unwind cross-com­pa­ny secu­ri­ty grant­ed…

In the News

Michael Byrnes dis­cuss­es the West­pac WFH case on 2SM with Tim Webster

Michael Byrnes appeared on Break­fast with Tim Web­ster on 2SM on 27 Octo­ber 2025 to dis­cuss the West­pac Work from…

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, What hap­pens when an employ­ee runs out of sick leave?”, pub­lished in HRM Online on 21 Octo­ber 2025

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“What hap­pens when an employ­ee runs out of sick leave?”, pub­lished in HRM…

Press Release | New Asso­ciate Appoint­ment — Isabel­la Machin

With a dual back­ground in account­ing and law, Isabel­la brings a depth of com­mer­cial insight and exper­tise to the firm across a wide…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information