Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd

Case

[2011] FCAFC 19

18 February 2011


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd [2011] FCAFC 19 [2011] FCAFC 19 18 February 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd involves a dispute between the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and Fortescue Metals Group Limited (FMG). ASIC alleges that FMG contravened the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by making misleading and deceptive public announcements about agreements it had entered into with Chinese entities. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where ASIC argued that FMG breached its continuous disclosure obligations and engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. The key legal issues were whether FMG's announcements constituted a breach of s 1041H of the Act, which pertains to misleading and deceptive conduct, and whether FMG's director, Andrew Forrest, contravened s 674 of the Act by allowing FMG to make these announcements.

The court examined the announcements made by FMG regarding the agreements with Chinese contractors, which were framed as binding agreements but were actually agreements to negotiate. The court concluded that while the announcements were based on an opinion about the legal effect of the agreements, that opinion was honestly held and reasonably based. The court found that the announcements did not constitute misleading or deceptive conduct as the opinion was not unreasonable and was genuinely held. This reasoning was based on a detailed examination of the evidence and the applicable legal standards for determining misleading and deceptive conduct under the Corporations Act.

The outcome of the case was that the appeal by ASIC was allowed. The court set aside the previous order and instead declared that FMG contravened ss 674(2) and 1041H of the Corporations Act, and that Andrew Forrest contravened ss 180(1) and 674(2A) of the Act. The court also ordered that the respondents pay the costs of the proceeding and the appeal. The matter was remitted to a judge of the Federal Court for further proceedings.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Corporate Law & Governance

Legal Concepts

  • Breach of Contract

  • Misleading and Deceptive Conduct

  • Continuous Disclosure

  • Directors' Duties

  • Unconscionable Conduct

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Most Recent Citation
Davis v Wilson [2025] FCA 108

Cases Citing This Decision

156

Sullivan & Sullivan [2011] FamCA 752
WOODHAM & ERICKSON (No.2) [2019] FCCA 1201