Lawlines Vol 10 Issue 1 - eOASIS - Rajah & Tann LLP

Vol 10 Issue 1 June 2008 • Rajah & Tann LLP’s Bi-Annual Journal on articles of current interest, features, and legal developmentsIN THIS ISSUE:A Round-Up Of LatestDevelopments In TheFirst Half Of 2008Rajah & Tann LLP Hosts9 th Lunchtime SeminarSeriesTax, Private Wealth &Trusts PracticeCourt Of Appeal DeliversJudgment On The LTA-Komoco Motors DisputeInsider Trading And TheVexed QuestionOf General AvailabilityCourts And Arbitration -A Question Of Balance?Recent Developments InSingapore LawDisclosure OfConfidential InformationBy ProfessionalIn The Pursuit Of ItsLegitimate InterestsPublic PrivatePartnership Projects– The ProcessOpen Source In ITContractsThe Decision In R v RivkinThree years later, an interesting scenario arose for consideration in the case of R v Rivkin [2004]NSWCCA 7.In the Rivkin case, Mr Rivkin had, in the course of a completely unrelated transaction, receivedinformation from Mr McGowan (the executive chairperson of Impulse Airlines) that he wastrying to ‘merge‘ Impulse Airlines with Qantas and was awaiting approval from the AustralianCompetition and Consumer Commission for that deal. Within hours of that conversation, MrRivkin gave instructions to his brokers to purchase Qantas shares. At trial, Mr Rivkin’s counselcontended that the information which Mr Rivkin possessed was generally available, due to theexistence of rumours in the press about the possibility of deals being done between two of thethen four airlines operating domestically, and rumours about the possible collapse of ImpulseAirlines. However, the Prosecution was able to establish: (i) the absence of information in the mediaabout the proposed ‘merger’ as described by Mr McGowan to Mr Rivkin; and (ii) evidence fromthe stockbroking industry to show that that there were no rumours of such a proposal prior to itsannouncement. As the Prosecution’s evidence was accepted, it was unnecessary and neither thetrial judge nor the New South Wales Criminal Court of Appeal considered whether the existenceof rumours in the press about the proposed ‘merger’ resulted in the information being ‘generallyavailable’.Concluding CommentsIf a case on the facts of Firns came before the Singapore Courts, or if by an extension to thefacts in Rivkin, rumours or other information of a material price sensitive nature are reported inthe press in an overseas jurisdiction (particularly where such press reports are also accessible via44 /77