Mirta Bine is invited to an industry lunch by the board of ASX-listed company Digger Minerals Ltd. Digger's main business is copper mining. When Mirta arrives at the lunch on Friday, three Digger board members tell Mirta they are celebrating, but won't tell her the precise details of the good news. Over lunch, several bottles of wine are consumed. Later that afternoon, Mirta texts her brother Albin: 'Just got home from a celebration lunch with the Digger Minerals board. Could be on the brink of a world-class discovery, so what's up?'

Mirta asked her brother, Albin, to buy Digger shares on her behalf the following Monday. The Digger board released a statement to the market on Wednesday, disclosing the discovery of a large copper deposit. Mirta sold her shares on Friday for $15, 000 profit.

When ASIC later investigates the trading undertaken by anyone known to be present at the Digger Minerals lunch, Mirta says the message to her brother referred to her discovery of a new wine she tasted at lunch, and did not refer to anything about Digger Minerals securities.

Part A

Outline the continuous disclosure requirements that Digger Minerals Ltd is subject to here.

Part B.

In the context of Australia's insider trading laws:

(i)Has Mirta engaged in insider trading (explain fully)?Advise Mirta as to the scope and extent of her potential liability.

(ii) Would it make any difference if Mirta did not actually profit from her trading?

(iii) Would it make a difference to any of these scenarios if the Digger Minerals board was actually 'bluffing' [joking] at the Friday lunch that is to say, there was actually no good news about the company?

[Question source: Company Law: an Interactive approach (2nd ed)]

289 words