ASIC v Citigroup- Case Analysis

When private side employees (investment banking) get aware of this, many steps were taken by the private side employees which resulted in the instruction to a trader to stop further purchase of the shares in Patrick corporation Limited. The Equity trading stopped purchasing further shares but in a span of half an hour before the closing of the trade, the Equity trading sold 20,000 shares which were purchased on that day at the profit. On the following date, Toll Holdings Limited announced its takeover bid for the Patrick corporation Limited.

Issue raised in the case

Whether Equity Trading was in possession of the insider information when it purchased the shares?

Contention of ASIC

CitiGroup was an advisor to Toll Holdings Limited and occupied the relationship which is fiduciary in nature. When the shares were purchased in Patrick Corporation Limited, the company CitiGroup breached the fiduciary duty and also the fiduciary obligation under Section 912A(1) of the Corporations Act of 2001.

Related Service: Help with Case Study

Also Citigroup breached Section 1043H and 12DA of the ASIC Act which states the prohibition of the deceptive and misleading conduct.

Decision of court

The court held that the fiduciary claim failed at outset as a letter of engagement through which Toll Holdings Limited was retained by the company CitiGroup have excluded the existence of the fiduciary relationship. Moreover the law did not prohibit the investment bank from contracting out of the fiduciary obligation at a commencement of relationship.

In order to succeed the first insider trading claim, the employee have to be in the possession of the insider information and its knowledge has to be attributable to the CitiGroup. But under section 1042G(1), the knowledge of employee was not attributable to the corporation CitiGroup unless and until it is an officer as per Section 9 of the said Act. Further the court also held that an employee has not made supposition as pleaded by ASIC as CitiGroup was acting for the company Toll Holdings Limited in context to takeover of Patrick Corporation Limited. Hence it does not breached provision of Section 12DA and 1043H which prohibits deceptive and misleading conduct.

For the seconding insider trading claim, it also failed as CitiGroup have claimed the defence of the Chinese wall as per section 1043F of Corporation act, 2001. The court upheld the defence of Chinese wall and endorsed the warning that the Chinese walls need to insulate the trader from the information in order to satisfy the essential requirement of the section. The court also outlined relevant procedure which are required for the effective Chinese wall as mentioned below-

• Physical separation of the department.
• Educational programmes.
• Procedures which are necessary to deal with crossing the wall.
• Monitoring by the compliance officer.
• Disciplinary sanctions.

Conclusion of the case

The case of ASIC v. CitiGroup have demonstrated as to how a adequate compliance system can protect the company and its owners from the liability of insider trading specified under the Corporations Act, 2001. The defence of Chinese Walls restrict the flow of information between different business divisions but the same time it helps the company to escape from damage of goodwill and fines. This case have worked as a timely reminder and a warning which shows the importance of complying with the measures especially in reference to the Chinese wall defence.

You may also like to read:

• ASIC v Plymin, Harrison and Elliot- Company Law
• Romeo v. Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory
• Asic v Vizard- Case Study
• Masters v Cameron- Case Analysis

UPTO50%

Avail The Benefit Today!

To View this & another 50000+ free

Enter Email

Submit