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

Dis­missal for Dissent?

The recent unfair dis­missal deci­sion of the Fair Work Com­mis­sion, Shaun Turn­er v Dare­bin City Coun­cil [2025] FWC 1763, in which Deputy…

Con­struc­tion con­tract time­frames and their inter­ac­tion with the NSW Secu­ri­ty of Pay­ment legislation.

Mark Glynn, Con­struc­tion Part­ner at Swaab con­sid­ers the recent deci­sion of Shar­vain Facades Pty Ltd (Admin­is­tra­tors Appoint­ed) v Roberts Co (NSW)…

10 Tips For Stra­ta Reme­di­al Con­struc­tion Contracts

Are you won­der­ing why your stra­ta work to repair or main­tain your stra­ta build­ing is over bud­get, rid­dled with delays…

In the News

Press Release | New Senior Asso­ciate Appoint­ment — Joshua Bernie

With more than 10 years’ expe­ri­ence in stra­ta and con­struc­tion dis­pute res­o­lu­tion across Aus­tralia and the UK, Joshua brings with him…

Press Release | We are pleased to announce five senior pro­mo­tions in key prac­tice areas of the firm effec­tive, 1 July 2025

Con­grat­u­la­tions:Maris­sa Arag­o­na — AssociateRamesh Chamala — AssociateAaron Boz — AssociateWilliam Clement — Senior AssociateKel­lie Van Mun­ster — Spe­cial Counsel “I am per­son­al­ly delight­ed…

Michael Byrnes quot­ed in the arti­cle, “‘Creep­ing’ unfair dis­missal thresh­old will increase to $183k on 1 July”, pub­lished in HR Leader on 27 June 2025

Michael Byrnes quot­ed in the arti­cle, “‘Creep­ing’ unfair dis­missal thresh­old will increase to $183k on 1 July”, pub­lished in HR Leader…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information