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

Land­lords Beware: New Tobac­co Laws Could Mean Heavy Fines and Even Gaol Time

How Do New Tobac­co Laws Affect Land­lords in NSW?This year the NSW State Gov­ern­ment is crack­ing down on the sale of…

When is entry into a lot with­out the lot own­er’s con­sent per­mit­ted to car­ry out repair work to com­mon prop­er­ty? When there is an emergency

When is entry into a lot with­out the lot own­er’s con­sent per­mit­ted to car­ry out repair work to com­mon prop­er­ty? When…

A Short Sto­ry about Bullying

In the recent Fair Work Com­mis­sion deci­sion of Appli­ca­tion by Gary Whitham [2026] FWC 3322, Deputy Pres­i­dent Col­man gave short…

In the News

Michael Byrnes appeared on McK­night Tonight with Robert McK­night on 6 Octo­ber 2026 to dis­cuss the lat­est devel­op­ments in the Jack­ie ​‘O’ Hen­der­son v ARN case (from 5:40 to 20:00)

What hap­pened to the Jack­ie O and ARN court case, and why did the Fed­er­al Court hear­ing col­lapse in OctoberMichael Byrnes appeared…

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, “ ​‘You can’t force new con­tracts on employ­ees’ ”, pub­lished in TV Black­box on 4 Octo­ber 2026

Can an employ­er force employ­ees to sign a new employ­ment con­tract if they don’t agree to the changes?Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in…

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“Jack­ie Hen­der­son and ARN’s court show­down post­poned”, pub­lished in Mum­brel­la on 2 Octo­ber 2026

Why was Jack­ie Henderson’s Fed­er­al Court tri­al against ARN Media post­poned, and what issues delayed the Octo­ber 2026 hearing?Michael Byrnes is…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information