This working paper presents the preliminary findings of a detailed empirical study of court proceedings brought by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) for breach of directors' duties provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in the ten year period from 2005 to 2014. This study is the most in-depth empirical analysis of public enforcement of directors' duties to date, examining the type, frequency and magnitude of sanctions imposed in civil and criminal proceedings, as well as the success rates, duration and reporting of such proceedings. Its findings provide the foundation for evidence-based legal analysis and policy development in relation to this fundamental area of corporate regulation. Effective enforcement of directors' duties is central to the wellbeing of Australia's society, economy and environment. Given the rapidly growing number of companies in Australia, with 2,292,624 companies registered as at November 2015, it is critical to ensure that companies are managed lawfully and responsibly. As Justice Middleton commented in ASIC v Healey (2011) 196 FCR 291, "The role of a director is significant as their actions may have a profound effect on the community, and not just shareholders, employees and creditors." Court action by ASIC and the CDPP plays a significant role in the enforcement of directors' duties, being responsible for approximately half of all public and private proceedings involving breach of directors' duties. Australia's public enforcement regime has attracted attention from overseas jurisdictions in relation to establishing, expanding or refining public regimes of their own. Yet the effectiveness of penalties for corporate wrongdoing has also been called into question in recent times, with the Financial System Inquiry concluding that the "maximum civil and criminal penalties for contravening ASIC legislation should be substantially increased to act as a credible deterrent for large firms." The Senate Standing Committee on Economics is currently conducting an inquiry into the "inconsistencies and inadequacies of current criminal, civil and administrative penalties for corporate and financial misconduct or white-collar crime." This working paper contributes towards an empirically informed discourse on the adequacy of penalties for corporate wrongdoing. The following are some of the key trends identified in the paper.

Helen Bird and colleagues report on a small‐scale research project completed in west Yorkshire that examined the effects of the closure of a traditional sheltered workshop on those who attended. The closure was contentious, and the report questions the centrality accorded to ‘social exclusion’ as a central feature of current policy and practice. They argue for a more nuanced approach, which reflects both service users' actual preferences and current social realities.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract