Must a listed company disclose that it has taken steps to ‘enter’ the Safe Harbour regime?
Doing so would almost certainly result in the withdrawal of trade credit facilities and thereby cause a liquidity crisis. But the ASX listing rules impose a quite rigorous continuous disclosure regime, requiring disclosure regardless of the damage it may cause to a business.
The update to Guidance Note 8 Continuous Disclosure: Listing Rules 3.1 – 3.1B released this month and available here directly addresses the question, providing very helpful guidance.
Rule 3.1 requires immediate notification to the ASX of:
“any information concerning it that a reasonable person would expect to have a material effect on the price or value of the entity’s security”
Paragraph 5.10 of GN 8 specifically confirms that rules applies to companies experiencing financial difficulties:
“The fact that information may have a materially negative impact on the price or value of an entity’s securities, or even inhibit its ability to continue as a going concern, does not mean that a reasonable person would not expect the information to be disclosed. Quite the contrary, in ASX’s view, this is information that a reasonable person would generally expect to be disclosed.”
Taking steps to enter Safe Harbour is evidence that directors are concerned about solvency. Surely the forming of a view that safe harbour is appropriate falls in the category of information that would have a materially negative impact on share price?
The updated Guidance Note directly addresses the issue, explaining that:
“ASX has been asked whether the fact that the entity’s directors are relying on the insolvent trading safe harbour in section 588GA of the Corporations Act requires disclosure to the market”
Updated paragraph 5.10 recognises that Safe Harbour is a conditional carve-out from a director’s potential liability for insolvent trading. GN 8 highlights that the legislation does not include an exemption from disclosure obligations, and so Rule 3.1 continues to apply – but goes on to explain:
“The fact that an entity’s directors are relying on the insolvent trading safe harbour to develop a course of action that may lead to a better outcome for the entity than an insolvent administration, in and of itself, is not something ASX would generally require an entity to disclose”
The guidance recognises that investors would always expect directors of an financially stressed business to consider whether there was a better alternative than an insolvency administration:
“The fact that they are doing so is not likely to require disclosure unless it ceases to be confidential, or a definitive course of action has been determined.”
A practical outcome
This is a very practical position for the ASX to take. Companies can maintain essential confidentiality rather than disclose issues that would almost certainly trigger a crisis of confidence, the freezing of credit facilities, and a severe liquidity crunch.
2 thoughts on “Secret Harbour?”