CSIRO head accused of misleading and deceptive conduct by Shareholders

Posted on July 20, 2015. Filed under: Uncategorized |

Below is an article published by journalistt Leo Shanahan in the Australian on 14 July 2015.  In short, CSIRO CEO Dr Larry Marshall has been alleged to be a central figure in the collapse of a Tech Company and in misleading its shareholders.  Dr Marshall was also allegedly a member of the Tech Companies audit committee.

Those familiar with the Novartis matter may be excused for feeling a certain sense of deja-vu!

Dr Marshall need not worry about maintaining a high standard of accountability in his position as CEO of the CSIRO as history demonstrates that in such matters where the conduct of a senior executive (or excutives) of the organisation are called in to question, the CSIRO will appoint an internal legal counsel to reassure the executive that there are no questions to answer.

We have previously witnessed this in the aforementioned Novartis example and in another case where three senior officers of the CSIRO (including a member of the Executive Management Team) had their testimony rejected by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as unreliable. Unsurprisingly, the acting legal counsel investigating the conduct of these three officers reported to one of these executives in their normal duties.

Dr Marshall should also feel much relieved and assured that when it comes to potential matters of potential conflict of interest, a simple statement with hand on heart is sufficient for a CSIRO Executive or even the CEO to reassure the Australian public that there is no conflict of interest where the rest of the Commonwealth Public Service and Agencies would go to great lengths to avoid being party to any such perception.

We note that this did not prevent Dr Marshall’s predecessor, Dr Megan Clark from presiding over decisions relating to CSIRO investment in  research in the mining sector despite being on the Australian board of directors of the Bank of America-Merrill Lynch (a significant investor in the resources sector in Australia) and taking up a position on the board or Rio Tinto before her term as CEO of the CSIRO had even expired.

Now we are not for one moment accusing Dr Clark of any form of wrong doing but anyone making decisions relating expenditure of moneys from the public purse must steadfastly avoid even the mere perception of such potential for conflict of interest.  This unsurprisingly is one of the first things covered in probity training undertaken by any Commonwealth employee tasked with undertaking purchases using public funds.

Another baffling question is why CSIRO employees who were on a team tasked with undertaking environmental impact studies critical to commencement of works within the Gladstone Harbour were subsequently appointed to a team investigating the significant death of marine life within the harbour after completion of the works.  Surely this has to be a stellar example of a very real conflict of interest!

CSIRO head Larry Marshal sued over technology firm collapse

Larry Marshall, photographed shortly after his appointment as CSIRO chief executive late

Larry Marshall, photographed shortly after his appointment as CSIRO chief executive late last year. Picture: David Moir Source: News Corp Australia

Larry Marshall, the chief executive of the multi-billion-dollar CSIRO and one of the nation’s highest-paid public servants, is being sued by a group of angry investors over the collapse of a technology company of which he was managing director.

Shareholders in failed laser technology company Arasor claim Dr Marshall was a central figure in the company’s collapse, alleging he and other directors engaged in misleading and ­deceptive conduct, as well as ­serious breaches of the Corporations and ASIC acts in relation to the company’s financial reports and a disastrous $81 million float.

Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane touted Dr Marshall’s ­significant private sector experience as a major reason for hiring him to drive a newly business-minded CSIRO. Dr Marshall has been serving as the agency’s chief executive since January.

The CSIRO receives just over $5 billion in funds from taxpayers and the private sector over the forward estimates period. According to its most recent ­annual report, the chief executive of the scientific research agency stands to earn up $800,000 in salary, superannuation and bonuses.

Dr Marshall, a former technology entrepreneur and physicist, was a managing director and executive director of the China-based Arasor, a company that sought to promote laser tech­nology in television and telecommunications.

He was also previously head of a series of other start-up technology companies, as well as managing director of technology venture capital firm Southern Cross Venture Partners.

Dr Marshall has taken over CSIRO at a difficult time, amid ongoing threats by staff of industrial action following $115 million in funding cuts and a pay dispute with management as the agency tries to reposition itself towards a model better suited to deal with the private sector.

Dr Marshall has made much of his private sector success, ­recently giving a talk at the Asia Pacific Creative Innovation conference, entitled Navigating the Valley of Death and Getting from Zero to IPO.

Arasor listed on the ASX in late 2006, with three separate capital raisings between the ­initial public offering and August 2007, worth a total of $81m. ­Despite initial investor interest in the laser technology, Arasor ended up being a financial disaster, with the company delisting in 2011 and going into liquidation shortly after.

In an ongoing claim before the Federal Court, it is alleged Dr Marshall, former Arasor executive chairman Simon Cao and other directors produced highly misleading prospectuses and ­financial reports prior to the three capital raisings.

It is claimed the documents hid Arasor’s disastrous profit outlook and falsely claimed the company was on track to millions of dollars in profit.

The group of shareholders, known as Caason Investments, also alleges that Arasor directors misled investors in the financial reports and prospectuses about tens of millions of dollars in contracts supposedly guaranteed by Indian and Chinese buyers for the lasers that, in reality, were not completed or never existed.

At its reported financial peak, at the end of 2007, Arasor reported revenue of $117m and claimed it was due to make a profit by the end of that year. In that year the company claimed Arasor’s revenue “had increased by 295 per cent” and this would be largely derived from the sale of its products to Indian and ­Chinese telecommunications companies.

However, the 2008 half-yearly report found that revenue for the half-year period had fallen to $10m, and bad and doubtful debts had risen to $50m. By the end of 2008, $53m had been written off in respect of the sales of wireless products to India. Dr Marshall was also allegedly one of three members of Arasor’s audit committee, which was responsible for ensuring the company’s financial reports were “legally compliant, consistent with committee members’ information and knowledge and suitable for shareholder needs”.

When asked whether Dr Marshall had previously declared the lawsuit, which has been running since October 2012, a CSIRO spokesman said the chief executive “had declared material interests in accordance with the SIR Act” but did not say whether this occurred before or after the interview process for the role.

“CSIRO is aware of the proceedings that relate to events before Dr Marshall was appointed chief executive of CSIRO … As the case is before the Federal Court we are unable to comment further at this time,” the spokesman said.

A spokesman for Mr Macfarlane told The Australian Dr Marshall “completed the required disclosure process for government appointment” but did not say when the disclosure was made. “It would be inappropriate to comment on a matter before the court,” the spokesman said.

At the time of his appointment in October last year Mr Macfarlane lauded Dr Marshall as “a scientist who brings significant commercial experience to this role”. “In particular, his experience in Silicon Valley, R&D development and the commercialisation of products and ideas will be valuable in ensuring CSIRO rightfully claims its place at the centre of Australian industry policy, building new links between business and research organisations,” he said.

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply to mikeandmegs Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

One Response to “CSIRO head accused of misleading and deceptive conduct by Shareholders”

RSS Feed for Victims of Bullying, Harassment, and Victimisation in the CSIRO Comments RSS Feed

This is tragicnstuff Where is the judicial enquirie?”Victims of Bullying, Harassment, and Victimisati

Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: