Newcrest review finds 'no systemic failure' on disclosure, investor relations NEWCREST'S self-commissioned investigation into its June continuous disclosure controversy contains only a mild rebuke for the company. But the Australian Securities and Investments Commission comes in for some heavy criticism from the author of the "independent"' report, former ASX chairman Maurice Newman. More than two months in the making, Dr Newman said in the report released today that he could not find a "smoking gun" that would have confirmed Newcrest had been lax its continuous disclosure obligations. He goes on to make17 recommendations that amount to providing more clarity and a tightening up of investor relations policies and procedures. Newcrest announced the Newman inquiry on June 25 in a bold attempt to defuse the impact on its reputation of the continuous disclosure uproar that followed Newcrest's June 7 market update, which revealed up to $6 billion in writedowns (since restated to $6.2bn), cancellation of its final dividend, and production problems. The update came almost eight weeks after the gold price suffered its biggest one-day loss in 33 years. While Newcrest's share price was under pressure anyway, the shares did fall heavily in the days immediately before the market update, prompting accusations of selective briefings of analysts. The accusations were a response to the flurry of negative broker reports ahead of the market update. Despite the attempt to defuse the uproar by appointing Dr Newman to investigate, the controversy has triggered an ASIC investigation and two potential class actions. It is the very existence of the ASIC investigation, its opaqueness, and the length of time it will take to complete, which has given the Newman report into the controversy an unexpected piquancy. "The ASIC investigation made my task considerably more difficult," Dr Newman said. He said brokers he wanted to interview around the contentious briefings by the company were "heavily protected by their compliance officers,"' and that he was unable to interview those domiciled overseas. He said that while the presence of the ASIC investigation did not greatly inhibit his review, it did make it "difficult for a company which is the subject of any inquiry." "Given that it is known that ASIC is conducting an investigation that has made people disinclined to speak to me, it would seem incumbent upon the regulator to advise the market when it its investigations begin and, should those investigations be terminated, the date of cessation," Dr Newman argued. "Otherwise, while my findings may significantly clear the air, for the matter to be fully resolved, the company and the market must await the outcome of ASIC's inquiries, if indeed the market is told," Dr Newman said. He argued that any listed entity which was seeking to clear its name by conducting a thorough and urgent review of its activities and processes would be "hampered by a concurrent ASIC investigation." "ASIC may wish to review this," Dr Newman said. The ASIC investigation could take up to a year to complete. ASIC is investigating whether Newcrest has a case to answer under section 674 of the Corporations Act and has the power to issue infringement fines and can pursue criminal and civil penalty actions. Newcrest has always maintained that it did nothing wrong. Newcrest chairman Don Mercer said today that the company "supports in principle all of Dr Newman's recommendations." We will now proceed with their implementation, noting that a number are already reflected, fully or in part, in existing company policies and procedures.