AI/Evidence: AI-generated meeting notes are creeping into investigations and disputes as quasi-verbatim records of what was said. That cuts both ways. Courts and regulators may treat these records as probative evidence, even where they misattribute comments, miss nuance, or strip out tone and context. The risk spikes in sensitive meetings. The practical lesson for boards and in-house teams is simple: defaulting to AI note-takers without guardrails is a governance fail. If you’re using them, treat outputs as drafts and review and correct them. Once it’s on the record, you may be stuck explaining it years later: Lander & Rogers 

Insolvency: The Vic Supreme Court has knocked out a winding-up application after finding a statutory demand was served by email, not post, blowing the three-month window to rely on the insolvency presumption. The Court held that service occurred when the demand came to the sole director’s attention by email, even though it was later sent by post. That made the demand stale, so the presumption of insolvency never arose. The creditor also struck out trying to pivot to actual insolvency, with leave to amend refused.

IP: The Federal Court has refused registration of two marks, finding “CRV GLADIATOR FAMILY” and “CRV FAMILIA” deceptively similar to Honda’s “CR-V”. Bennett J applied orthodox principles of imperfect recollection and the perspective of the notional consumer, holding that there was a real chance buyers would wonder about a connection to Honda. That was enough to trip s 44 of the Trade Marks Act. The added words didn’t cure the problem because the dominant “CRV” element carried the risk.

Regulatory Reform: Labor is weighing a major governance reset for managed investment schemes, after the Shield and First Guardian collapses left ~12,000 investors $1bn out of pocket. A Treasury consultation proposes forcing responsible entities to appoint a majority of external directors, banning related-party transactions (with limited carve-outs), and supercharging ASIC’s data-collection powers over the retail funds sector. Super trustees would also need to report suspicious switching patterns, including waves of rollovers out of APRA funds. For fund managers, this flags higher governance costs, tighter board composition rules, and ongoing disclosure obligations. For advisers and platforms, expect closer scrutiny of switching behaviour and remuneration models. Consultation closes 27 February, and industry input now matters: The Treasury

Corporate: ASIC has confirmed that company extracts purchased via its website will no longer display officeholders’ residential addresses. The move is framed as a response to privacy, personal safety, and identity theft risks, reflecting growing concern about the ease with which directors’ home details can be accessed online. Law enforcement, government agencies and those with a legitimate regulatory need will still be able to obtain the information, but ASIC has not yet outlined how or when that access will be granted.