“The recommendation could only be justified as some form of punishment which is wholly inappropriate.
“There was no finding in either the Victorian Royal Commission or the NSW Inquiry to the effect that CPH’s mere shareholding influenced Crown’s culture.
“To impose a shareholding cap is to restrict a prospective shareholder’s ability to buy shares and to restrict the company to which the cap applies to raise capital freely.
“No evidence has been provided, so there has been no consideration of the economic effect that might have, let alone how a sell-down might work and the adverse effect any sell-down might have on price.”
The pushback by Mr Packer’s lawyers came after the billionaire told the Perth inquiry in October he had no objection to Commissioner Finkelstein’s recommendation to sell CPH’s shares by 2024.
There was confusion during an October hearing as to whether the share selldown had to occur by 2024 or 2026.
When Mr Hutley sought clarification from Mr Packer during the October hearing on whether he accepted a selldown by 2024 or 2026 the billionaire said he would “rely on my legal counsel for advice”.
Mr Hutley also said on Wednesday any influence Mr Packer or CPH might have had in the past was “extinct” and the company should not be part of the Perth commission’s considerations on whether Crown should still hold a licence in Western Australia.
“That influence has ceased permanently,” he said. “It is extinct, not merely dormant.”
The senior counsel assisting the inquiry Patricia Cahill said in her closing remarks that it was open to question whether the Perth Casino Royal Commission needed to assess the suitability of Crown entities holding a licence so there was no prospect of future CPH influence.
“An assessment of the relevant past conduct of the CPH parties may expose systemic deficiencies in the governance, management – or both – of the Crown entities, which are important to identify and consider the extent to which they have been addressed,” she said.
Ms Cahill told the commission aspects of Perth casino’s operation which were currently in flux could have an impact on the assessment of Crown’s suitability to hold a licence.
She said these matters included the absence of a pending appointment for a chief executive at Perth casino, the lack of an interim chief operating officer and the likelihood of the Victorian Royal Commission’s requirement for a separate board and management at the company’s Melbourne casino going ahead.
“Similarly the likelihood and consequences of the Blackstone Group’s acquisition of the Crown Resorts Limited shareholding,” Ms Cahill said.
Crown’s senior counsel Kanaga Dharmananda said on Tuesday he did not see an instability issue from a potential change of ownership for the casino group.
“This is a corporate transaction from a reputable private equity firm,” he said.
“They are about to make an acquisition if it proceeds. If they proceed to make the acquisition, then the transaction is completed. The scope of the capacity for that transaction to be completed will be subject to other regulatory approvals in any event.”
