Regulatory Update: Key Developments for Businesses and Directors

Recent Federal Court judgments and regulatory developments highlight key risks and practical lessons for businesses, directors and legal, risk and compliance teams.  

What does the Star Entertainment decision mean for governance and AI?

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) continues to identify governance and directors’ duties failures as an enforcement priority. In June 2026, the Federal Court disqualified former Star Entertainment executives from managing corporations for six and seven years respectively.¹ The Court’s findings and ASIC’s response reinforce the responsibility of executives to identify, escalate and properly manage significant organisational risks.² The decision highlights the standards expected of executives performing legal, compliance and risk functions.³ 

Artificial intelligence can assist directors and executives to review information, identify issues and manage large volumes of material. However, it should support, rather than replace, informed human judgement.⁴ Directors remain responsible for critically assessing the information presented to them, asking appropriate questions and ensuring that material risks are escalated. ASIC has emphasised that directors are expected to take considered risks and should not approach their role as passive recipients of information or events.⁵

Are your director identification records ready for 1 July 2027? 

All directors of Australian companies must have a director identification number (DIN). A person intending to become a director must generally apply before appointment. A DIN is unique to the individual, is retained permanently and does not need to be obtained again for each directorship. 

From 1 July 2027, companies will be required to provide their directors’ DINs to ASIC through company reporting processes, including annual reviews and notifications of changes to directors’ details.⁶ ASIC recommends that companies check their records now, confirm that all current directors are listed and correct any inaccuracies. 

DIN compliance should be incorporated into director onboarding and transaction completion checklists. For an acquisition, each person proposed to become a director of the target or another group entity at completion should be identified early and required to confirm that the person holds a DIN. 

Continuous disclosure obligations

In August 2026, the Federal Court found that McPherson’s Limited⁷ breached its continuous disclosure obligations and engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by failing to disclose information affecting its profit forecast.⁸ The Court also found that its former CEO and managing director breached his duty of care and diligence.⁹

McPherson’s had forecast growth in profit before tax.¹⁰ It later received a substantially reduced purchasing forecast from a key customer, but the Court accepted that this was initially a draft and was not sufficiently certain to require disclosure.¹¹ The position changed when McPherson’s received sales results that were materially below the announced target. The Court found that the sales results, considered together with the reduced purchasing forecast and excess stock levels, should have led McPherson’s to conclude that its profit would likely be materially lower than previously forecast.¹² 

The decision highlights the importance of promptly escalating information that may affect existing market guidance. It also demonstrates that new information should be considered collectively and in the context of earlier market announcements, rather than assessed in isolation. 

Are your standard contract terms fair and transparent? 

On 31 August 2026, the Federal Court ordered Venture 5 Group Pty Ltd, trading as CashnGo, to pay a $3.5 million penalty¹³ for proposing and relying on unfair terms in standard form consumer credit contracts. 

The contracts allowed CashnGo to monitor customers’ bank accounts hourly and make unscheduled withdrawals following a payment default, without prior notice of the timing, amount or frequency of the withdrawal.¹⁴ CashnGo’s systems could repeatedly withdraw funds as soon as they became available and, in some cases, leave customers with insufficient funds for essential expenses.¹⁵ 

The decision also highlights the importance of transparency. Although customers were asked to confirm that they had read and agreed to the terms, the online application process did not require them to open or view them.¹⁶ The practical effect of the terms was also not separately explained to customers. 

The Court considered that a reasonable customer would not have understood that CashnGo could monitor their bank account hourly and withdraw funds as soon as they became available, potentially leaving only nominal funds in the account. Given the significant effect of these terms, their operation should have been clearly explained. 

The Court also found that the contracts contained unfair indemnity and limitation of liability terms. Those terms operated broadly, including in relation to intentional or negligent conduct by CashnGo, without equivalent protections for customers.¹⁷

Expanded AML/CTF obligations 

From 1 July 2026, Australia’s anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CTF) regime expanded to cover designated services commonly provided by real estate agents, dealers in precious metals and stones, and professional service providers such as lawyers, conveyancers, accountants and trust and company service providers.¹⁸ 

The Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) expects newly regulated businesses to have enrolled, assessed their money laundering and terrorism financing risks, appointed appropriate governance roles and embedded their AML/CTF policies into daily operations.¹⁹ Affected businesses should ensure that their risk assessments, customer due diligence, staff training, escalation procedures and reporting controls operate effectively in practice. 

What should businesses do now? 

Businesses should: 

• review standard form contracts for unfair terms and ensure that significant terms and their practical effect are clearly explained to customers;  

• establish clear policies for AI-assisted work and maintain proper human oversight;  

• verify incoming directors’ DINs and eligibility during onboarding and transaction completion;  

• regularly review forecasts and market guidance, consider new information as a whole and promptly correct guidance where required; and  

• ensure that AML/CTF risk assessments, customer due diligence, staff training, escalation procedures and reporting controls operate effectively in practice. 

How Burch&Co can help 

Burch&Co assists businesses and directors to establish and maintain effective governance frameworks, understand how to comply with directors’ duties in practice and develop processes for identifying, escalating and managing material risks, including those arising from the use of AI. Our team can help your business integrate appropriate compliance checks and review your standard form contracts to identify potentially unfair terms and ensure that significant terms and their practical effect are clearly explained. 

---

1. Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ‘Former Star Entertainment executives Mathias Bekier and Paula Martin disqualified and ordered to pay penalties’ (Media Release, 17 June 2026). ↩︎
2. Ibid. ↩︎
3. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Bekier (Penalty Judgment) [2026] FCA 756, [80].  ↩︎
4. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Bekier (Liability Judgment) [2026] FCA 196, [1956].   ↩︎
5. Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ‘It’s tough being a director (but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it)’ (Speech, Australian Institute of Company Directors Governance Summit, 2026)  ↩︎
6. Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ‘Get ready for new director ID requirements from 1 July 2027’ (Newsroom, 24 August 2026). ↩︎
7. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v McPherson’s Limited [2026] FCA 1130. ↩︎
8. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v McPherson’s Limited [2026] FCA 1130, [781], [808].  ↩︎
9. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v McPherson’s Limited [2026] FCA 1130, [813].  ↩︎
10. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v McPherson’s Limited [2026] FCA 1130, [5]. ↩︎
11. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v McPherson’s Limited [2026] FCA 1130, [636].  ↩︎
12. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v McPherson’s Limited [2026] FCA 1130, [762]-[763], [717]-[720].  ↩︎
13. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Venture 5 Group Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1278 (31 August 2026), [9].  ↩︎
14. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Venture 5 Group Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1278 (31 August 2026), [30]. ↩︎
15. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Venture 5 Group Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1278 (31 August 2026), [37].  ↩︎
16. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Venture 5 Group Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1278 (31 August 2026), [70].  ↩︎
17. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Venture 5 Group Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1278 (31 August 2026), [61]-[65]. ↩︎
18. Anti‑Money Laundering and Counter‑Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth); Anti‑Money Laundering and Counter‑Terrorism Financing Amendment Act 2024 (Cth). ↩︎
19. AUSTRAC, ‘Our regulatory priorities for 2026-27’ (19 August 2026). ↩︎