Regulatory: ASIC has unveiled its 2026 enforcement priorities, zeroing in on misleading pricing, private credit misconduct, dodgy financial reporting, and claims and complaints failures by insurers. Deputy Chair Sarah Court says the regulator is running “more investigations, more court actions, and securing record penalties”, with new risks emerging as cost-of-living pressures bite. ASIC will also elevate its probe into the collapse of the Shield and First Guardian funds to a standalone priority, calling it one of its biggest cases ever. Continuing priorities remain insider trading, predatory credit, small business creditor evasion, super trustee failures and auditor misconduct. With tougher scrutiny on unlisted asset valuations and private credit, ASIC is signalling a big enforcement year ahead: ASIC

Employment: Turns out, your employer can reject your resignation letter. An employee’s resignation only takes effect if it complies with the contract, meaning an employer can refuse a defective resignation that doesn’t meet notice or form requirements. If an employee gives too little notice, or resigns verbally where written notice is required, the employer can either accept it anyway or affirm the contract, keeping the employment relationship alive. Until it’s accepted, the employee can withdraw the defective resignation. Where a contract doesn’t specify notice, employees must give “reasonable notice” based on their role and length of service. But once a resignation is validly given under the contract, award or EA, employers cannot refuse it: Hall Payne

Corporate/Property: The Victorian Tribunal considered the validity of a “change of control” in a retail lease context. In San Remo Australia v San Remo Holdings, a 51% share transfer made one shareholder the sole owner, but the Tribunal found no practical change in control because he had been running the business since 2014 as the other shareholder’s health declined. Leaning on s 50AA of the Corps Act and cases stressing practical influence over formal ownership, VCAT said “change of control” clauses exist to protect landlords from material risk changes, not internal corporate tidy-ups. And so, there had been no change to the substantive control of the tenant at a practical or operational level. Even if control had changed, the landlord’s refusal of consent was unreasonable under the Retail Leases Act, as the business, guarantor, and financial position remained unchanged.

M&A: The Takeovers Panel has ordered Cosette Pharmaceuticals to accept any conditions reasonably required by Treasurer Jim Chalmers to keep Mayne Pharma’s South Australian factory open, including conditions that restrain its closure. The Panel called Cosette’s threat to shut or sell the plant if forced to complete the acquisition “contrary to an efficient, competitive and informed market”. Cosette has been trying to walk away from the deal for months, but the NSW Supreme Court blocked its termination, with an appeal now looming. The Panel also ordered both sides to hand over all FIRB communications, ahead of FIRB’s decision due Thursday. For Mayne shareholders, the ruling boosts hopes the Treasurer can force completion with factory-protecting conditions: Capital Brief

IP: Getty Images loses to AI Stability in the UK Courts. Its High Court held that the AI company doesn’t store or reproduce training images, meaning there are no “copies in the model” for secondary copyright infringement. The Court said an “article” can be intangible, but still found that the model doesn’t contain any copyrighted works and hosted access isn’t “importation” into the UK. The ruling puts the UK on a collision course with retained EU law, which limits “articles” and distribution rights to tangible goods. That gap raises appeal risk and fresh uncertainty around digital exhaustion. For now, the practical takeaway is that remote access carries far lower copyright risk than downloads, and the decision leaves key questions — like training and scraping in the UK — for another day: Latham & Watkins