In The News
I’m afraid AI can’t do that: Law firms say smart tech uses limited
Holden dealers reject GM’s bleak alternate reality in class action
Lawyer’s defamation case fails serious harm test, judge finds
Nine, News Corp defeat defamation suits over Central Coast crime coverage
Zip offered Firstmac $4M to settle trade mark suit
High Court rejects Qantas appeal in ground crew sacking case
High Court to rule on reach of workplace law in high-stakes Qantas case
Mosaic Brands boss told GM paying $275K bonus would land him in jail, suit says
ACCC delays decision on Coles acquisition of Saputo plants
Hungry Jack’s to take bite out of franchisee’s profits with ‘competing’ restaurants: suit
Please login to bookmark Close

A judge has questioned the $55,000 penalty jointly proposed by the parties in ASIC’s case against fintech company Squirrel Super over misleading statements about returns on property statements, saying it “might be a bit light on.”

Subscribe to Lawyerly to access this article.

Already a subscriber?
Lost your password?

For information on rights and reprints, contact subscriptions@lawyerly.com.au