ASIC Corporations (Compromises or Arrangements) Instrument 2025/613

The instrument turns on a small set of definitional and doctrinal levers in the Corporations Act and in ASIC's exemption power. The core concepts are:

• Eligible foreign country. The instrument lists six jurisdictions (Hong Kong; Malaysia; New Zealand; Singapore; South Africa; United Kingdom) and confines the foreign-relief regime to compromises or arrangements regulated by laws in those places (s 4).

• Foreign compromise or arrangement. A foreign compromise or arrangement is defined as a compromise or arrangement between a foreign company and its members, regulated by a law in force in an eligible foreign country or part of it. The instrument therefore focuses on cross-border corporate compromise mechanisms conducted under the regulatory regimes of the listed jurisdictions (s 4).

• Reasonable belief. The exemptions are conditional on the person "reasonably believ[ing]" the foreign compromise or arrangement is made in accordance with the laws of an eligible foreign country at the relevant date (s 5(1), s 5(3)). The statute sets a subjective-objective threshold for reliance rather than an absolute factual test in the instrument itself.

• Scope of relief by statutory reference. Relief operates by disapplying or suspending the application of particular provisions of the Corporations Act. For securities, the relief relates to Part 6D.2 and Part 6D.3 (s 5(1)-(2)). For other financial products, it disapplies ss 1012B and 1012C and exempts advisers from s 1012A for relevant recommendations (s 5(3)-(5); s 6(1)-(3)). The instrument does not purport to remove other statutory obligations that are not expressly listed.

• Part 5.1 compromises. The instrument provides equivalent relief for compromises or arrangements under Part 5.1 of the Corporations Act when those compromises are approved at a meeting held, or to be considered at a meeting to be held, as a result of an order made under s 411(1) or (1A) (s 6). The instrument then treats Chapter 6D and Part 7.9 as if textual amendments had been made to two provisions (s 7).

• Drafting clarification via "as if" declaration. Section 7 operates not by amending the Act but by declaring how Chapter 6D and Part 7.9 are to be applied for purposes of the instrument. It states that the Act is to be read as if subsection 708(17) and subparagraph 1019D(1)(d)(iii) were varied to include offers that are "to be considered at a meeting to be held" (s 7(1)-(2)). The instrument therefore changes the interpretive framing used by ASIC in applying the statutory disclosure regimes.

• Temporal limits: resale within 12 months. The relief for resale offers is limited to sales made within 12 months after the issue of the securities or financial product under the qualifying compromise or arrangement (s 5(2), s 5(4), s 6(2)).

• Sunset. The instrument is self-revoking at the start of 1 October 2030 (s 8).

Each of these concepts feeds into the practical requirements for persons who seek to rely on the exemptions, and into the compliance, evidentiary and risk calculus that buyers, issuers and advisers will apply. The instrument defines who qualifies for relief (persons offering under qualifying compromises), who does not (persons outside those narrow conditions), what conduct is covered (issue, sale, offers and advice in specified circumstances), and the temporal and jurisdictional limitations that gate reliance.

The instrument identifies a limited and specific set of actors who are directly affected by its operation.

• Persons making offers of securities or other financial products under a foreign compromise or arrangement. Section 5(1) and s 5(3) say that "a person does not have to comply" with specified disclosure provisions where the person offers securities or financial products under a qualifying foreign compromise or arrangement and reasonably believes the foreign compromise is made in accordance with the laws of an eligible foreign country. The phrase "a person" is broad and includes issuers, sellers and intermediaries who make offers, subject to the statutory definitions and limits in the instrument.

• Persons making sale offers within 12 months after issue. Sections 5(2) and 5(4) disentitle offers of securities or financial products that fall within 12 months after the issue from the identified disclosure duties, provided the securities or products were issued or transferred under a foreign compromise or arrangement. That creates a cohort of secondary sellers who may rely on the relief within a defined post-issue window.

• Advisers as defined. The instrument provides adviser‑specific relief. "Adviser" is defined narrowly as either a financial services licensee or an authorised representative of such a licensee (s 4). Section 5(5) and s 6(3) relieve such advisers from complying with s 1012A of the Act when the adviser makes a recommendation to acquire a financial product under a qualifying foreign compromise or under a Part 5.1 compromise approved at the specified meeting. Persons who provide advice but who are not financial services licensees or authorised representatives are outside this specific exemption.

• Persons involved in Part 5.1 compromises under orders made under s 411(1) or (1A). Section 6 targets conduct arising from compromises or arrangements under Part 5.1 that are approved at, or to be considered at, a meeting convened following a court order under s 411(1) or (1A). That identifies a particular procedural context within the Act as within the instrument's scope.

• ASIC and its delegated decision-making. The instrument is made by an ASIC delegate (Amanda Zeller) under specified powers in the Corporations Act (s 3). ASIC is the decision-maker that promulgates the relief and establishes the interpretive modification in s 7, so regulated entities rely on an ASIC instrument rather than a statutory amendment.

Secondary and indirect effects reach other parties:

• Investors and purchasers of securities or financial products who receive offers that are exempt from the specified disclosure requirements will be affected because the legal disclosure baseline applied to those offers changes. The instrument does not itself entitle purchasers to equivalent information that the Act would otherwise require.

• Legal and compliance advisers working for issuers and sellers. They will be responsible for establishing that the conditions for reliance are met, notably the "reasonable belief" that the foreign compromise is made in accordance with eligible foreign country laws (s 5(1), s 5(3)).

• Market intermediaries and platforms handling offers. They must accommodate offers that fall outside the usual Chapter 6D or ss 1012B-1012C disclosure frameworks if a client asserts reliance on the instrument.

Actors who are not directly affected are also identifiable by omission:

• The instrument does not purport to vary other parts of the Corporations Act beyond those expressly listed. Compliance obligations outside Part 6D.2, Part 6D.3, ss 1012A-C and the specified interpretive provisions remain in force to the extent they apply.

• The instrument confines foreign jurisdictional relief to a closed list of eligible countries (s 4). Offers tied to compromises under other foreign legal regimes are not covered.

Overall, the instrument reallocates disclosure obligations away from certain offerors and advisers in defined cross-border and Part 5.1 contexts, while leaving the statutory baseline intact for others.

The instrument creates and removes duties and rights by reference to specified sections of the Corporations Act. It does not create new disclosure duties; instead, it suspends particular duties for qualifying conduct. The operative duties and rights are:

• Suspension of compliance obligations. Persons who offer securities under a qualifying foreign compromise or arrangement are not required to comply with Part 6D.2 or Part 6D.3 of the Act in relation to that offer if the person reasonably believes the foreign compromise is made in accordance with the laws of an eligible foreign country (s 5(1)). For financial products other than securities, persons are not required to comply with s 1012B or s 1012C where those products are issued, sold or offered under such a foreign compromise (s 5(3)). These provisions therefore create a right to decline to comply with the specified disclosure provisions when the statutory conditions are met.

• Resale exemption for a fixed period. The instrument confers a right to make sale offers within 12 months after issue without complying with Part 6D.2 or Part 6D.3 (for securities) or s 1012C (for other financial products), when the securities or products were issued or transferred under a qualifying foreign compromise (s 5(2), s 5(4)). That right is time-limited and only applies within the 12 month window.

• Adviser exemption from s 1012A. The instrument grants a right to advisers, as defined, not to comply with s 1012A when giving a recommendation to acquire a financial product issued under a qualifying foreign compromise or arrangement (s 5(5); s 6(3) for Part 5.1 compromises). This removes a specific statutory duty from qualifying advisers in relation to covered recommendations.

• Equivalent rights for Part 5.1 arrangements. Section 6 confers equivalent non‑compliance rights for persons who issue or offer financial products under a compromise or arrangement under Part 5.1 of the Act when the compromise is approved at a meeting held, or to be considered at a meeting to be held, after an order under s 411(1) or (1A) (s 6(1)-(3)).

• Interpretive application of Chapter 6D and Part 7.9. Section 7 provides a declaratory or interpretive right by instructing that Chapter 6D and Part 7.9 apply "as if" certain textual variations (adding the phrase "or to be considered at a meeting to be held,") had been made to subsection 708(17) and subparagraph 1019D(1)(d)(iii) respectively (s 7(1)-(2)). That changes the descriptive scope of those provisions for purposes of the instrument.

• Condition of reasonable belief. The relief in s 5 and s 6 is conditional on the person "reasonably believ[ing]" that the foreign compromise or arrangement is made in accordance with laws in an eligible foreign country (s 5(1), s 5(3)). That language imposes an evidentiary and procedural burden on the person relying on the exemption; it is a legal condition precedent to the right not to comply.

• Temporal and jurisdictional limitations. The rights to non‑compliance are limited to compromises regulated by laws in the listed eligible foreign countries (s 4), and the resale relief is limited to 12 months after issue (s 5(2), s 5(4), s 6(2)). The instrument itself has a limited life ending at the start of 1 October 2030 (s 8).

What the instrument does not do, as stated on its face:

• It does not purport to amend the Corporations Act by textual change; it provides relief and an interpretive declaration for application purposes only (s 3, s 7). It does not purport to create new criminal offences or civil penalties.

• It does not expressly alter licensing obligations, continuous disclosure obligations, or duties that sit outside the specific referenced sections. Persons remain subject to other parts of the Act except as expressly relieved.

In short, the instrument converts certain statutory disclosure obligations into conditional, limited-duration exemptions for specified cross-border and court-ordered Part 5.1 arrangements, subject to a "reasonable belief" qualification and jurisdictional and temporal restrictions.

The instrument itself is a source of exemption rather than a schedule of penalties. It functions by specifying where certain Corporations Act disclosure duties do not apply, rather than by creating new enforcement provisions. The enforcement and penalty implications flow from that structural position.

• No direct penalties within the instrument. The instrument does not introduce new offences or penalty provisions. It simply states that persons "do not have to comply" with certain sections of the Corporations Act in the circumstances described (for example, s 5(1), s 5(3), s 6(1)).

• Enforcement of remaining statutory obligations. Because the instrument disapplies only specified sections, all other obligations and prohibitions in the Corporations Act and other laws remain enforceable. The instrument does not create a shield against actions or proceedings that arise under other statutory provisions, common law duties or contractual obligations.

• Reliance and potential enforcement risk. The condition that the person "reasonably believes" that the foreign compromise or arrangement is made in accordance with eligible foreign country laws (s 5(1), s 5(3)) introduces an evidential point of focus for regulators or private litigants. If a party asserts the relief in the instrument but that assertion is challenged, the party will need to show that the reasonable belief condition was met. The instrument itself does not define the standard of proof or the processes by which ASIC or courts might determine that belief.

• ASIC's regulatory role. ASIC made the instrument under statutory powers in the Corporations Act (s 3). While the instrument is an ASIC instrument, it does not insulate a party from ASIC enforcement where conduct contravenes other provisions of the Act or broader regulatory standards. ASIC retains enforcement powers under the Act.

• Civil or equitable claims. The instrument does not speak to potential civil claims that could arise from reliance on the exemption. For example, investors who contend they suffered loss because they did not receive information that would otherwise have been required might bring private claims under applicable causes of action, subject to the applicable laws and defences. Those civil pathways remain available independent of the instrument.

• Temporal enforcement window for resales. The instrument permits non‑compliance for resale offers made within 12 months after issue (s 5(2), s 5(4), s 6(2)). Offers beyond that window will not benefit from the exemption and therefore remain subject to enforcement for non‑compliance with the Act.

• Repeal and post‑repeal conduct. The instrument is repealed at the start of 1 October 2030 (s 8). Offers or conduct after repeal cannot rely on the relief it provides. The instrument does not specify transitional enforcement arrangements beyond the repeal date.

Practically, enforcement consequences will turn on whether a person meets the instrument's conditional requirements when claiming the exemption. ASIC retains enforcement discretion under the Act, and regulated entities will need to manage the evidential and timing consequences of the conditional exemption to mitigate regulatory and litigation risk.

The instrument operates exclusively by disapplying specified disclosure provisions of the Corporations Act for defined circumstances. Its interactions with other laws are therefore by omission and conditional application rather than by substantive amendment.

• Interaction with the Corporations Act. The instrument is made under ss 741(1) and 1020F(1) of the Corporations Act (s 3). It operates as an ASIC instrument that suspends the need to comply with particular sections of the Act where its conditions are met (s 5, s 6). It also issues a declaration about how Chapter 6D and Part 7.9 are to be applied for the contexts specified, by treating subsection 708(17) and subparagraph 1019D(1)(d)(iii) as if they contained additional wording (s 7(1)-(2)). The instrument therefore functions as an interpretive overlay on the Act for those contexts.

• Limits to statutory displacement. The instrument disapplies only the specified sections: Part 6D.2 and Part 6D.3 for securities offers (s 5(1)-(2)); ss 1012B and 1012C for other financial products and s 1012A in respect of adviser recommendations (s 5(3)-(5); s 6(1)-(3)). Other provisions and regulatory requirements in the Corporations Act, such as licensing obligations, directors' duties, continuous disclosure where it applies, insolvency offences or other civil and criminal provisions, are not addressed by the instrument and remain in force unless separately modified by other instruments or legislation.

• Cross-border legal regimes. The instrument accepts, for the purposes of the exemptions, that compromises or arrangements regulated by laws in the listed eligible foreign countries can be treated as qualifying events (s 4). That creates an operational interaction between Australian disclosure duties and the legal frameworks of the listed foreign jurisdictions. The instrument does not, however, purport to reconcile substantive differences in investor protection, enforcement or remedies between Australia and those jurisdictions; it relies on the presence of a foreign legal regime and the offeror's reasonable belief that the foreign compromise has been made in accordance with that regime.

• Market conduct and consumer protection laws. The instrument does not expressly address consumer protection or general misleading or deceptive conduct prohibitions that apply across Australian law. Those obligations remain in force. The instrument therefore narrows only certain disclosure obligations and does not create a general immunity from liabilities that might arise under other domains of law.

• Interaction with Part 5.1 and s 411 orders. For compromises under Part 5.1 approved at, or to be considered at, a meeting called following an order under subsection 411(1) or (1A), the instrument provides parallel relief (s 6(1)-(3)). The instrument also declares an interpretive modification to 708(17) and 1019D(1)(d)(iii) for application in Chapter 6D and Part 7.9 (s 7(1)-(2)). The operation of s 411 orders and Part 5.1 remains governed by the Corporations Act; the instrument affects only the disclosure duties tied to offers arising from those processes.

• Temporal coordination with other instruments and repeal. The instrument has a built-in sunset (s 8). Offers or conduct after the repeal date will be governed by the Corporations Act as it stands at that time, or by other instruments or legislative changes that may intervene. The instrument does not contain transitional provisions affecting other instruments.

In summary, the instrument carves out narrow exceptions to specific disclosure requirements in the Corporations Act for defined cross-border and Part 5.1 circumstances, while leaving the rest of the statutory and regulatory framework intact. It creates operational interfaces between Australian disclosure law and the laws of specified foreign jurisdictions by enabling offerors to treat certain foreign compromise outcomes as triggers for exemption, conditional on the reasonable belief requirement.

The instrument is self-contained in the text provided. The instrument records the following historical facts on its face.

• Date and maker. The instrument was made by Amanda Zeller, a delegate of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, on 19 September 2025 (cover and s 3). The instrument is made under subsections 741(1) and 1020F(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (s 3).

• Commencement. The instrument commences the day after registration on the Federal Register of Legislation (s 2). No other commencement stagger or staged implementation is provided.

• Repeal. The instrument is scheduled to be repealed at the start of 1 October 2030 (s 8). There are no other express sunset clauses for particular provisions; the repeal applies to the instrument as a whole.

• No prior amendments recorded. The instrument itself does not record any prior instruments amending its text. The published instrument is presented as a single instrument with Parts 1-4 and associated provisions. No amendment schedule or series of amending instruments is included in the text.

• Declaratory modifications. Section 7 contains an express "legislative drafting clarification" which declares that Chapter 6D and Part 7.9 are to be applied "as if" particular textual changes were made to subsection 708(17) and subparagraph 1019D(1)(d)(iii) respectively (s 7(1)-(2)). That is an internal interpretive declaration for the instrument's application rather than a formal amendment to the Corporations Act.

Because the instrument is an ASIC legislative instrument rather than primary legislation, the amendment history in the instrument is limited to its own making date and the scheduled repeal. Any subsequent amendments, revocations or replacements would be recorded by later ASIC instruments or primary legislative change; no such documents are included in the source text provided.

Practitioners should therefore note: the instrument itself is time limited (s 8), and any reliance on its exemptions after the repeal date will require either legislative continuation, a replacement instrument, or reliance on other statutory provisions.

The instrument text contains no litigation history. It does not cite any cases, decisions or precedents. There are therefore no judicial determinations recorded in the instrument itself that interpret or apply this instrument.

That absence of recorded litigation in the instrument does not mean that litigation cannot arise. The instrument creates several potential points of legal dispute that would be litigable under the Corporations Act framework. The key litigation risk mechanisms arising from the instrument are:

• Disputes about the "reasonable belief" condition. Sections 5(1) and 5(3) condition the disclosure relief on the person reasonably believing that the foreign compromise or arrangement is made in accordance with laws in an eligible foreign country. Litigation could arise over whether a person genuinely met that standard when asserting the exemption. Courts would need to evaluate the evidence of the state of the person's belief and the steps taken to form it. The instrument does not set out what constitutes sufficient documentary or advisory evidence to discharge the "reasonable belief" condition.

• Jurisdictional characterisation. The instrument defines "foreign compromise or arrangement" as regulated by laws in an eligible foreign country (s 4). Litigation might raise factual disputes about whether a particular compromise is regulated by the law of a listed jurisdiction or whether the regulatory connection is sufficiently strong to meet the instrument's definition.

• Interpretation of the "to be considered at a meeting to be held" change. Section 7 declares that Chapter 6D and Part 7.9 apply "as if" certain textual amendments had been made to 708(17) and 1019D(1)(d)(iii). If the instrument's declaratory amendment is relied on in litigation, parties may litigate the scope and effect of that interpretive modification and whether, as a matter of statutory construction, the declaration should be given the effect the instrument intends.

• Scope of the adviser exemption. The instrument's adviser definition (financial services licensee or authorised representative) is narrow (s 4). Litigation could turn on whether particular persons fall within that definition and hence whether they properly relied on the s 1012A exemption in s 5(5) and s 6(3).

• Interaction with other causes of action. Plaintiffs might bring claims under other statutory provisions or common law remedies where loss is alleged to have resulted from reliance on offers made without the disclosure that would have been required absent the instrument. The instrument does not remove liability under other laws, so litigation could centre on the extent to which the exemption affects defences or remedies.

Because no cases are cited or recorded in the instrument, practitioners wishing to assess litigation risk must evaluate the instrument's texts (s 4-7) and the substantive parts of the Corporations Act that remain in force. Any litigation that arises will turn on the facts, the evidentiary record about belief and jurisdiction, and the interaction between the instrument and the remainder of the Act. The instrument itself does not prescribe dispute-resolution processes or safe-harbour documentation to eliminate this litigation risk.

The instrument contains a number of specific features that create practical traps or drafting pitfalls for market participants relying on its relief. The following are concrete issues that arise from the instrument's text.

• Narrow eligible jurisdictions. Relief for foreign compromises or arrangements is limited to a closed list of six jurisdictions (Hong Kong; Malaysia; New Zealand; Singapore; South Africa; United Kingdom) (s 4). Compromises regulated by the laws of other jurisdictions are not covered. Practitioners should check the instrument's list before assuming relief is available.

• "Reasonable belief" is a condition precedent. The instrument conditions relief on the person "reasonably believ[ing]" the foreign compromise is made in accordance with the laws of an eligible foreign country (s 5(1), s 5(3)). That phrasing requires the relying party to be able to justify the belief. There is no list of prescribed steps or documentary proof in the instrument. Failure to take adequate steps to form or record that belief may leave a party unable to establish the condition if challenged.

• Adviser definition is narrow. The definition of "adviser" limits the adviser exemption to financial services licensees and their authorised representatives (s 4). Persons who give recommendations but are not captured by that definition do not benefit from the s 1012A exemption (s 5(5), s 6(3)).

• Time-limited resale relief. Secondary sale offers are exempt only if they are made within 12 months after the issue of the securities or financial product (s 5(2), s 5(4), s 6(2)). Sellers who rely on the exemption after that 12 month window risk non‑compliance.

• Reliance requires linkage between issue and compromise. The instrument repeatedly ties the exemption to securities or products that were "issued or transferred under" a qualifying foreign compromise or a qualifying Part 5.1 compromise (s 5(2), s 5(4), s 6(2)). Parties must be able to show the nexus between the issue/transfer and the compromise.

• Part 5.1 relief depends on the s 411(1) or (1A) meeting context. The Part 5.1 relief applies only where the compromise under Part 5.1 is approved at a meeting held, or to be considered at a meeting to be held, as a result of an order under s 411(1) or (1A) (s 6). That procedural trigger is specific and excludes Part 5.1 compromises that are not linked to such an order.

• Declaratory "as if" modification may be litigated. Section 7 treats Chapter 6D and Part 7.9 as applying "as if" the wording in subsection 708(17) and subparagraph 1019D(1)(d)(iii) were varied to include "to be considered at a meeting to be held," (s 7(1)-(2)). That interpretive step could be contested as to its proper legal effect and may give rise to argument about whether the declaratory treatment has the effect intended in every factual scenario.

• Absence of protection from other liabilities. The instrument disapplies only particular disclosure requirements and does not exempt parties from other statutory duties, civil liabilities or criminal offences that may apply. It is not a blanket immunity.

• Sunset date. The instrument expires at the start of 1 October 2030 (s 8). Reliance on the exemption requires monitoring of the repeal date and any successor instruments or legislative changes.

• No express record-keeping prescription. The instrument does not expressly mandate record‑keeping or specify what evidence will suffice to establish the "reasonable belief" condition. While best practice will be to retain contemporaneous legal advice and jurisdictional analysis, that is not prescribed by the instrument and could create evidentiary disputes if such materials are not produced.

These concrete features are focal points for compliance programmes and transactional documentation. Parties asserting the relief should address each of these elements in their due diligence and client advice.

The instrument creates conditional relief; compliance when relying on it requires a process to establish that the conditions are met and to manage residual legal risk. The following practical steps flow directly from the instrument's text and should be considered as part of a compliance checklist.

1. Confirm scope: qualifying event and jurisdiction

• Establish that the securities or financial product were issued, transferred or are offered under a "foreign compromise or arrangement" as defined (a compromise between a foreign company and its members regulated by law in an eligible foreign country) (s 4; s 5(1), s 5(3)).
• If relying on Part 5.1 relief, confirm the compromise is under Part 5.1 of the Corporations Act and that approval is at, or to be considered at, a meeting convened as a result of an order under s 411(1) or (1A) (s 6(1)).

2. Document the eligible foreign country connection

• Identify which eligible foreign country (from the closed list in s 4) regulates the compromise or arrangement.
• Obtain contemporaneous legal advice or an internal legal memorandum setting out the legal basis in that foreign jurisdiction showing that the compromise is "regulated by or under a law" in force in that jurisdiction (s 4). Although the instrument does not prescribe specific evidence, such advice supports the "reasonable belief" requirement.

3. Form and record the "reasonable belief"

• Prepare a record demonstrating the steps taken to form a reasonable belief that the foreign compromise complies with the laws of the eligible foreign country at the relevant date (s 5(1), s 5(3)). This may include legal opinions, board minutes, transaction correspondence and due diligence reports.
• Date-stamp and retain these records to demonstrate contemporaneous reliance if later challenged.

4. Check adviser status before relying on adviser relief

• If seeking to rely on the adviser exemption from s 1012A, confirm the adviser is a financial services licensee or an authorised representative as defined in the instrument (s 4; s 5(5); s 6(3)).
• Document the adviser’s licensing or representative status and the recommendation context.

5. Manage timing for resale relief

• For secondary sales, track the issue date. Resale relief applies only for sale offers made within 12 months after the issue of the securities or financial products issued or transferred under the qualifying compromise (s 5(2), s 5(4), s 6(2)).
• Put procedures in place to prevent offers outside the 12 month window being treated as covered by the instrument.

6. Limit reliance to the specified exemptions

• The instrument disapplies only Part 6D.2 and Part 6D.3, s 1012B, s 1012C and s 1012A in the narrow terms stated (s 5-6). Do not treat the instrument as affecting other disclosure, licensing or conduct obligations under the Corporations Act or other laws.
• Where appropriate, provide voluntary information to potential investors to manage market and reputational risks given that statutory disclosure duties are suspended only in the narrow circumstances specified.

7. Prepare internal compliance memos and approvals

• Obtain sign-off from legal/compliance teams confirming that all conditions for reliance have been met and documenting the legal bases used.
• Include the instrument’s commencement and repeal dates in governance materials (s 2; s 8).

8. Monitor for changes and repeal

• Note the instrument’s repeal at the start of 1 October 2030 (s 8). Monitor for successor instruments or legislative amendments that might extend, modify or replace this relief.
• Where transactions extend beyond the repeal date, obtain advice on transitional arrangements and alternative compliance paths.

9. Consider investor communications and contractual protections

• Even where relief applies, contemplate contractual disclosures, representations and warranties, and indemnities to manage investor expectations and liability risk.
• Where advisers rely on the s 1012A exemption, consider additional documentation of the basis for recommendations given the adviser definition’s limits (s 4; s 5(5); s 6(3)).

10. Retain records for potential challenges

• Although the instrument does not prescribe record retention periods, maintain records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the instrument’s conditions and to show the factual nexus between the issue/transfer and the qualifying compromise.

These steps map directly to the instrument’s textual conditions (s 4-7). They are practical actions that help convert the statutory "reasonable belief" condition and the jurisdictional and timing constraints into an auditable compliance posture.