MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2268908996

Does the Westpoint Litigation Signal a Revival of the ASIC Section 50 Class Action

2008· article· en· W2268908996 on OpenAlexaff
Janet Austin

Bibliographic record

VenueUNSWorks (UNSW Sydney) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClass actionEnforcementDamagesShareholderLegislatureSecurities fraudBusinessMisconductCommissionContext (archaeology)Law and economicsLawPolitical scienceEconomicsCorporate governanceFinanceSupreme courtState (computer science)Computer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Section 50 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) confers a wide power on the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) to bring civil action in the name of the company or a class action for shareholders or investors for the recovery of damages for corporate misconduct. Despite its broad scope, this power has been little used by ASIC. Until the recent Westpoint litigation it appeared that this trend seemed set to continue due to the recent growth in ASIC’s arsenal of enforcement powers, in particular the ability to bring proceedings seeking civil penalties, together with what promises to be a new age of private enforcement of shareholders rights through class actions funded by litigation funding corporations. In the context of this likely expansion of private enforcement action and the current legislative framework of ASIC’s enforcement powers, this article will examine when ASIC should bring civil action under this provision.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0190.014
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0170.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.180 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUNSWorks (UNSW Sydney)Same topicCorporate Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207