Ann O’Connell, ‘Protecting the Integrity of Securities Markets — What is an “Artificial Price”?: DPP (Cth) v JM‘ (25 July 2013).
In DPP (Cth) v JM the High Court unanimously allowed JM’s appeal against a decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal. JM allegedly sought to create an ‘artificial price’ on the Australian Securities Exchange by having a family member strategically purchase shares, and the meaning of that phrase was the central issue in the appeal. Rejecting the ‘narrower’ reading taken up by a majority of the VSCA, the High Court ruled that a share price created or maintained by a transaction that was carried out for the sole or dominant purpose of creating or maintaining a price was an artificial price.
|High Court Judgment|| HCA 30||27 June 2013|
|High Court Documents||DPP (Cth) v JM|
|Full Court Hearings|| HCATrans 96||8 May 2013|
| HCATrans 95||7 May 2013|
|Special Leave Hearing|| HCATrans 347||14 December 2012|
|Appeal from VSCA|| VSCA 21||14 June 2012|