{"id":15303,"date":"2022-08-29T06:42:05","date_gmt":"2022-08-29T06:42:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/?p=15303"},"modified":"2022-08-30T03:41:41","modified_gmt":"2022-08-30T03:41:41","slug":"australian-business-law-review-update-vol-49-pt-5","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/2022\/08\/29\/australian-business-law-review-update-vol-49-pt-5\/","title":{"rendered":"Australian Business Law Review update: Vol 49 Pt 5"},"content":{"rendered":"

Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU. If you are using Checkpoint, the links can be found in the Checkpoint PDF <\/strong>at the bottom of this post.<\/p>\n

To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com<\/a> or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or\u00c2\u00a0+61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AST).<\/p>\n

The latest issue of the Australian Business Law Review <\/em>(Volume 49 Part 5) contains the following material:<\/p>\n

EDITORIAL<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c General Editor: Michael Terceiro<\/em><\/p>\n

Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n

Articles<\/h3>\n

The Devil is in (Not Disclosing) the Detail: How Transparency Creates Public Legitimacy \u00e2\u20ac\u201c The Introduction of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement Scheme in <\/strong>Australia<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Patrick Gardiner<\/p>\n

In December 2019, the Australian Government proposed to introduce a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) scheme through the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Corporate Crime) Bill 2019 <\/em>(Cth). Though a comparison with existing DPAs schemes in the United States and in England and Wales, this article argues that Australia\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s proposed DPA scheme provides greater judicial oversight of the DPA process than occurs in the United States. However, to ensure that there is public confidence in the legitimacy of the DPA process, Australia\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s proposed DPA scheme should be amended to ensure the entirety of the DPA process is transparent and publicly accessible. Amendments should reflect existing features of the English and Welsh model, these include provisions that require the mandatory publication of DPAs, the reasons for their acceptance, and reports on how corporations have complied with the terms of their agreement.<\/p>\n

Click here to access article on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00e2\u20ac\u0153Strong Reasons\u00e2\u20ac\u009d: The Epic Litigation and the Primacy of Public Policy over Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Brandon Smith<\/p>\n

Since the High Court\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s decision in Akai Pty Ltd v People\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Insurance Co Ltd<\/em>, Australian courts have taken a cautious approach to departing from exclusive jurisdiction clauses, requiring \u00e2\u20ac\u0153strong reasons\u00e2\u20ac\u009d to be demonstrated. In its recent decision in Epic Games, Inc v Apple Inc<\/em>, the Full Court of the Federal Court overturned a decision staying proceedings brought by Epic Games, the developers of the popular video game \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Fortnite\u00e2\u20ac\u009d, against Apple. Contrary to the primary judge, the Full Court found that there were \u00e2\u20ac\u0153strong reasons\u00e2\u20ac\u009d to refuse to grant a stay, relying heavily on the unique statutory remedies and framework of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 <\/em>(Cth) (CCA) and to a lesser extent the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). This article will explore the ramifications of this decision, as part of a trend of Federal Court case law, for the efficacy of exclusive jurisdiction clauses in Australia in commercial litigation for proceedings including a CCA and\/or ACL cause of action. While the Full Court\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s decision is a welcome development, this article argues that its unique factual circumstances mean that future courts must be careful not to apply its reasoning too broadly. Furthermore, this article will also seek to use the Epic litigation to highlight the problems associated with the continued use of the concept of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153juridical disadvantages\u00e2\u20ac\u009d within the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153strong reasons\u00e2\u20ac\u009d doctrine.<\/p>\n

Click here to access article on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n

Growing Pains: The Challenge for Franchising from Increasingly Complex Stakeholder Relationships<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Andrew Terry and Cary Di Lernia<\/p>\n

Franchising originated as an expansion strategy for a small business with a proven concept and the ambition to grow. For the start-up business today with expansion aspirations, franchising remains the most effective growth strategy. But franchising is no longer exclusively a small business strategy. Somewhere along the way franchising got big. Inevitably, with growth comes growing pains. This article addresses a particular challenge in the transformation of franchising \u00e2\u20ac\u201c that of increasingly complex relationships for all stakeholders posed by the increasing influence of private equity in contemporary franchising.<\/p>\n

Click here to access article on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n

BOOK REVIEW<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Nick Felstead<\/em><\/p>\n