In the wake of a withdrawn float that would have valued the Australian data centre company Firmus near $44 billion, the country's corporate regulator has quietly begun asking hard questions about what was told to big investors before the deal collapsed. The inquiries, aimed at the banks that were steering the offering, concern whether the claims made in private marketing were accurate, properly qualified and grounded in evidence. It is a familiar moment in market life, when ambition runs into scrutiny and the old tension between persuasion and candour is tested in public, though the regulator
ASIC Probes Claims Made to Investors in Collapsed $44 Billion Firmus Float
Action must not only be taken – it must be seen to be taken.
Why does a letter to a senator matter this much?
Because it's ASIC saying on the record that it is asking whether claims made to investors were accurate and had a reasonable basis. That's a pointed question about a float that would have been the biggest since Telstra in 1997.
Who is ASIC actually asking?
The joint lead managers: Bank of America, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley and Morgans Financial. The inquiries are described as targeted.
Worth being careful, though. Nobody has said anyone misled anyone. Court explicitly said no adverse inference should be drawn yet.
Is this a formal investigation?
No. She told the Senate hearing it is preliminary and no formal investigation has been launched.
So the allegations Sharma calls serious are, in the reporting, questions raised, not findings. The article doesn't say who raised them or what exactly was claimed.
What was behind the investor caution?
Fears of existing shareholders selling soon after listing, views that pricing was aggressive, and revenue of $50 million with two data centres operating.
And Court frames hard bargaining over price as normal. The withdrawal itself isn't treated as a system failure.
So what do we watch?
Whether ASIC decides further consideration is warranted, and how its review of pre-lodgement advertising relief for retail offers turns out.
Il Polso
- A planned record-sized listing collapsed, leaving a $44 billion ambition stranded and the market asking what went wrong.
- Questions about whether private claims to institutional investors were accurate and supported have pulled the corporate regulator into the room.
- The Australian Securities and Investments Commission is making targeted inquiries of the four banks that led the deal, while stressing it has opened no formal investigation.
- Political pressure is mounting, with a senator demanding that action be seen to be taken and not merely promised.
- The outcome now rests on what the regulator gathers from the lead managers, and whether preliminary questions harden into something more serious.
In the wake of a withdrawn float that would have valued the Australian data centre company Firmus near $44 billion, the country's corporate regulator has quietly begun asking hard questions about what was told to big investors before the deal collapsed. The inquiries, aimed at the banks that were steering the offering, concern whether the claims made in private marketing were accurate, properly qualified and grounded in evidence. It is a familiar moment in market life, when ambition runs into scrutiny and the old tension between persuasion and candour is tested in public, though the regulator itself insists that nothing has yet been proven and that hard bargaining between companies and sophisticated buyers remains a normal part of how prices are found.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has written to a Senate inquiry to say it is making preliminary inquiries into the collapsed float of Firmus, a data centre company that hoped to list at close to $44 billion. The focus is on the joint lead managers, the banks running the offer, and on whether what they told institutional and wholesale investors during marketing and bookbuilding was accurate, properly qualified and backed by a reasonable basis. The chair, Sarah Court, has stressed that no adverse inference should be drawn and that no formal investigation has begun.
The scale of the deal explains the attention. The planned raise of about US$5.5 billion would have been the largest ASX float since Telstra in 1997, funding data centres across Australia, Southeast Asia and beyond, with prospective customers including Meta and OpenAI. Yet as the process went on, some investors grew wary, worried about a flood of existing shares after listing and judging the pricing aggressive, against a company whose latest annual revenue was only $50 million and which runs two data centres.
The company's history adds another layer. Co-founder Oliver Curtis once served a year in jail for insider trading and later founded Firmus as a bitcoin miner. Senator Dave Sharma has called for the matter to be taken seriously, arguing that its implications reach beyond one failed float to the heart of market trust. For now, the regulator insists the episode is not a failure of the rules, and what happens next depends on the material it gathers from the banks.
In a letter to Liberal senator Dave Sharma, the chair of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, Sarah Court, set out where the regulator stands on the collapsed float of data centre company Firmus. ASIC, she wrote, is making targeted inquiries of the joint lead managers of the offer, which would have valued the homegrown company at almost $44 billion. She added that no adverse inference should be drawn yet.
The letter, first reported by The Australian, describes what the inquiries are about. ASIC is aware of questions over whether information given to institutional and wholesale investors during the marketing and bookbuild was accurate, appropriately qualified and backed by a reasonable basis when it was provided. Court wrote that the inquiries are ongoing and that ASIC will consider what it obtains and whether any further consideration is warranted.
At a Senate estimates hearing on Thursday, Court stressed that the work is preliminary and that no formal investigation has been launched. She called the episode a very significant event that the regulator understands it must look at carefully.
She also pushed back on the idea that the withdrawal exposed a flaw in the system. In the letter, she said ASIC does not regard it as a failure of Australia's capital markets or of the rules governing pre-IPO marketing and institutional bookbuilds. Robust negotiation between issuers and informed institutional investors, she wrote, is an ordinary and important part of price discovery. Separately, ASIC has been reviewing its pre-lodgement advertising and publicity relief for offers of securities to retail investors that require a disclosure document.
The scale of the planned deal explains the attention. Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Morgans Financial were joint lead managers, aiming to raise about US$5.5 billion ($7.9 billion). That would have been the largest ASX float since Telstra in 1997. The money would have let Firmus borrow many billions more to build data centres across Australia, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia, which the company forecast would sell services to customers such as Meta and OpenAI.
But some potential investors grew more cautious as the deal went on. They worried that existing shareholders could flood the market soon after the debut, and some saw the pricing as aggressive. Firmus's latest annual revenue was just $50 million, and it currently operates only two data centres.
Sharma said it was reassuring that ASIC is investigating what he called serious allegations. He argued the saga is bigger than one failed float, saying credible claims of misleading representation and serious conflicts of interest go to the heart of market trust. Action, he said, must not only be taken but be seen to be taken.
Firmus was co-founded by Oliver Curtis, husband of public relations consultant and influencer Roxy Jacenko. Curtis served a year in jail in 2016-17 for insider trading, then co-founded Firmus in 2019 as a bitcoin mining company. He, co-founders Tim Rosenfield and Jonathan Levee, and his father Nick Curtis would have held shares worth more than $10 billion at the planned price.
What comes next is ASIC's assessment of the material it gathers from the lead managers, and whether that leads to anything beyond the current preliminary inquiries.
Citazioni salienti
This was a very significant event. We understand that and we need to look at it carefully.— Sarah Court, ASIC chair, Senate estimates hearing
The Firmus saga is bigger than just one failed float.— Senator Dave Sharma