No abstract

Manuscript Type: ConceptualResearch Question/Issue: In this paper we identify and discuss the relationship between corporate governance and risk management of high technology firms, with publicly listed Australian biotechnology companies as a case in point. We present a governance structure that better manages the numerous complex risks such companies face. Research Findings/Insights: Audit committees are traditionally responsible for oversight of auditing matters relating to the company's financial systems and risk management relating to financial reporting. While the audit committee needs to have a full understanding of the risk management system in order to be able to assess the overall risk profile of the company we illustrate that the complex risk and regulatory environment high technology firms face may necessitate the creation of a separate risk management committee to interface with and assist the board and audit committee. Theoretical/Academic Implications: We provide evidence that the traditional governance model is inadequate in today's complex business environment, particularly for high technology companies. By analyzing the legislative, industry, and complex risk environment faced by these firms, we posit that the traditional model may need to change to meet the demands of a wider definition of governance that specifically incorporates risk management. Practitioner/Policy Implications: Against a backdrop of corporate collapse, increasing corporate regulation and reporting, risk management and oversight has been a recent addition to the role of the board. It is not inconceivable that capital market regulators may require reporting on risk management and the creation of a separate risk management in the future.

This paper investigates the use of graphs, selection of variables to graph and construction of graphs in prospectuses issued by Australian companies making their initial public offering (IPO) of shares to the Australian capital market. The paper formulates and tests hypotheses concerning selectivity in the use of graphs and distortion in the construction of graphs presented in IPO prospectuses, as well as providing descriptive evidence about the use of graphs in such prospectuses. Results show that firms enjoying improving profit performance are significantly more likely to include graphs of key financial variables in their prospectuses than firms suffering deteriorating profit performance. Thus, similar to studies of graphs in annual reports, evidence of selectivity in the inclusion of graphs is found. No significant relationship is found between performance on the variable being graphed and distortion in the construction of the graph. When the graphs are split between those covering key financial variables and other variables, a significant relationship is found in both categories. For graphs of other variables, a significant positive association is found between performance and distortion. However, the relationship for key financial variables is in the opposite direction to that suggested by impression management. Further analysis identifies significant sub‐period differences in selectivity and distortion which are consistent with the view that the major regulatory and institutional changes outlined in the paper, reduced the extent of selectivity and graphical distortion in the post‐1991 period. As far as we are aware, this is the first study reported in the literature to investigate the use of graphs in prospectuses. The results also have policy implications for the regulatory authority in Australia.

No abstract

In this article, we examine the responses of family companies to the emerging environment of mergers and acquisitions, specifically within the international wine industry. At issue is the question of how the family perspective influences responses of a family firm to the prospect of merger or takeover. We examine the issue through a case study of the takeover of an Australian wine producer and family firm, Peter Lehmann Wines. The case study demonstrates ways in which the family perspective is critical in driving responses, for example, in the strength and forms of opposition to one of the potential acquirers in the case, indicating just how important the preservation of a family legacy was to key family members. However, the case also illustrates how in a takeover fight the dynamics of the takeover process itself become important in determining outcomes. In addition, the case demonstrates that family involvement and influence can be maintained in spite of takeover.