Fashion retailer Fewstone, trading as City Beach, has been ordered by the Federal Court to pay $14 million in penalties for selling non-compliant button battery products.
City Beach admitted that, between June 2022 and October 2024, it had supplied products that that did not comply with the button battery safety standard on more than 54,000 occasions, and that during the same period it had supplied products that did not comply with the button battery information standard on more than 56,000 occasions.
The products included toys, digital notepads, keyrings, lights and light-up Jibbitz accessories for Crocs shoes. The Court noted that many of these products were marketed or intended for children.
The Court observed that there were pervasive failures by City Beach to inform itself of its obligations under the Australian Consumer Law and to comply with its obligations as a retailer of products which may cause serious harm, and that City Beach’s unlawful conduct put more than 50,000 young children at risk of severe injury or death.
The Court described City Beach’s “lack of urgency in seeking to recall the non-compliant products” as “condemnable.”
“Today’s penalty sends clear message to businesses and suppliers that failing to meet safety standards for button batteries is unacceptable and can result in serious penalties,” ACCC Commissioner Luke Woodward said.
“Button batteries pose a significant risk to children, and can be fatal. The ACCC will not hesitate to take strong enforcement action against businesses that fail to comply with the button battery standards.”
This was the first court proceeding brought by the ACCC for breaches of the button battery safety standards.
Earlier this month, the Court found City Beach breached the Australian Consumer Law by selling a range of consumer novelty products that did not comply with mandatory button battery safety and information standards.
The Court ordered an injunction restraining City Beach from engaging in future contraventions of the Mandatory Standards.
The Court also ordered City Beach to implement a consumer law compliance program and to undertake advertising as part of its voluntary recall of the products in question.
Following a contested hearing on penalties, today the Court ordered City Beach to pay penalties totalling $14 million.
To check if a product has been recalled, visit the ACCC product safety website or contact City Beach.
Examples of the recalled products subject to the court proceedings
Background
The ACCC commenced Federal Court proceedings against City Beach in April 2025.
City Beach is a national retailer primarily offering surf and skate consumer goods including clothing, accessories and novelty items.
Button batteries are dangerous and pose a significant risk to young children if swallowed or inserted. If swallowed, a button battery can become stuck in a child’s throat and result in serious lifelong injuries or death. Insertion into body parts such as the ears or nose can also lead to serious injuries. In Australia, three children have died from inserting or ingesting button batteries. Children up to 5 years of age are at greatest risk of injury from button batteries.
Australia’s mandatory button battery standards, which came into effect in June 2022, aim to reduce the risk of death or serious injury caused by button batteries.
The safety standard requires products to have secure battery compartments that are designed to be resistant to being opened by children. This is to prevent children from gaining access to button batteries. The information standard requires safety warnings to be provided with products, including seeking urgent medical advice in certain circumstances.
On a quiet corner in downtown Kirkwood, Missouri, the curtain has risen on a new era for the arts. The 40,000-square-foot Kirkwood Performing Arts Center (KPAC) — a glowing glass-and-concrete landmark — draws residents and visitors alike into…
SEATTLE – The Washington men’s basketball team returns to the confines of Alaska Airlines Arena on Monday, hosting San Diego on Montlake before the holiday break.
Monday’s battle will tipoff at 7:00 p.m. PT, airing nationally on the Big Ten…
The Federal Government has recently unveiled some significant changes to the new merger regime which were first foreshadowed by the Assistant Minister for Competition in mid-October 2025.[1] These changes are designed to address concerns raised by stakeholders about potential over-capture of deals and uncertainty. Some of the updates will come into force from 1 January 2026 and the remainder have a deferred start date of 1 April 2026.
The key changes include:
From 1 January 2026:
new exemptions for acquisitions of land and quasi-land rights, including for acquisitions of interests in land made in the ‘ordinary course of business’;
limits to the circumstances in which minority interest holders will be treated as ‘connected entities’ for the purpose of assessing Australian revenue for notification thresholds;
refinements to notification obligations regarding creeping or serial acquisitions; and
updates to the notification waiver applications process.
From 1 April 2026:
new control and asset monetary thresholds for notification commence.
In this article, we unpack what these last-minute amendments mean for you if you are looking to do deals in 2026.
Background
Australia’s merger control regime is undergoing its most significant transformation in decades, with the introduction of a new mandatory and suspensory notification system for certain acquisitions of shares and assets. From 1 January 2026, parties to transactions that meet specified monetary or control thresholds and do not fall within an exemption will be required to notify the ACCC and obtain clearance or obtain a notification waiver before completing the deal.
Overview of existing monetary thresholds for notification and further changes
Changes to the notification thresholds will be introduced progressively.
From 1 January 2026
Monetary thresholds: there will continue to be two alternative thresholds:
1. Combined acquirer group + target / asset AU revenue of ≥$200 million + one of:
target / asset AU revenue ≥$50 million; or
deal value ≥$250 million.
2. Acquirer group AU revenue of ≥$500 million + target / asset AU revenue ≥$10 million.
The bolded figures are calculated by reference to any Australian revenue as at the contract date of the acquisition or the cumulative Australian revenue of all acquisitions made of the same or substitutable goods or services in Australia by the acquirer (and its connected entities) in the previous 3 years (‘3-year look back’).
From 1 January 2026, the deeming rate of 20 per cent of market value for assets where attributable Australian revenue cannot reasonably be calculated will be repealed.
From 1 April 2026
Monetary thresholds – acquisitions of discrete assets: where an acquisition of assets does not involve all or substantially all of the assets of a business, a new set of monetary thresholds will be applied. In short, notification will be required if:[2]
1. Combined acquirer group + target / asset AU revenue is ≥$200 million and the higher of:
the market value of the assets; or
the consideration paid,
is ≥$200 million.
2. The acquirer group AU revenue is ≥$500 million and the higher of:
the market value of the assets; or
the consideration paid,
is ≥$50 million.
For acquisitions of substantially all of the assets of a business, the ordinary monetary thresholds applicable from 1 January 2026 will continue to apply.
Control and voting power thresholds: contrary to the current position, notification of certain transactions that do not give rise to control will be required. This includes where an acquirer’s voting power in respect of a target entity shifts in one of the following ways as a result of the acquisition:
voting power in respect of any unlisted entity not widely held (50 or less members) increases from less than or equal to 20 per cent to ≥20 per cent;
voting power in respect of any entity increases from ≥20 per cent to ≥50 per cent;
voting power in respect of a Chapter 6 entity increases from less than or equal to 20 per cent to ≥20 per cent even though the acquirer (and any associates) already controlled the target prior to the acquisition;[3] or
voting power in a Chapter 6 entity increases from <20 per cent to ≥50 per cent even though the acquirer and any of its associates do not control the target before or after the acquisition.[4]
New ‘ordinary course of business’ exemption for land acquisitions
There is a new exemption from notification requirements for acquisitions of interests in land that occur in the‘ordinary course of business’.[5] This exemption will apply regardless of whether the transaction is structured as a direct acquisition or as an acquisition of shares or units in a land entity.
The broader economic context is important, but generally, routine acquisitions of a legal or equitable interest in land, whether freehold or leasehold will fall within this new exemption. The Explanatory Statement clarifies that the exemption is intended to apply to routine business activities in the relevant sector (rather than that of the particular acquirer). Importantly, the exemption may still apply even if the particular acquirer does not undertake such transactions frequently or if the investment is large[6].
The exemption does not apply to acquisitions in certain designated sectors (supermarkets currently fall within this designated class). The Explanatory Statement also makes it clear that the exemption will not apply to acquisitions: of land on which a competitor is operating a business; that involve the transfer of production capacity from one competitor to another; or for the purpose of land banking.
Property transactions previously considered by the ACCC
The Determination currently provides an exemption for acquisitions of equitable or legal interests in land where an earlier equitable interest in relation to the same land has previously been notified to the ACCC and cleared under the new merger review process. This exemption avoids multiple notifications for what are, in substance, single acquisitions occurring in stages (for example, pursuant to an agreement for lease). The updated exemption will also apply to:
quasi-land rights;[7]
transactions where the acquisition of the initial interest is subject to a notification waiver; and
transactions where the initial interest in land was acquired prior to 1 January 2026 (regardless of whether the acquisition of that initial interest was cleared by the ACCC).
Narrowing the definition of ‘connected entity’
The concept of ‘connected entities’ is central to determining which entities’ Australian revenues are aggregated for the purposes of the notification thresholds. Connected entities include entities that are in a position to exercise control over a relevant entity, either alone or together with one or more associates.
The amendments make it clear that investors in unlisted companies with fewer than 50 shareholders are not treated as ‘associates’ simply because they hold ordinary minority shareholder protection rights. That is, rights that:
mirror those typically granted to minority shareholders to safeguard their financial interests;
are proportionate to that purpose; and
do not give the holder, alone or with others, power to control: board composition, the appointment or dismissal of senior managers (or any veto over such decisions), or the company’s financial or operational policies.
Refinements to the serial acquisition notification thresholds
The changes also refine the serial (or ‘creeping’) acquisitions notification thresholds.
In addition to the existing exclusion for transactions involving revenue of <$2 million, the following transactions are also exempt from being counted towards the ‘3-year look back’, including:
share acquisitions where the acquirer has not begun, or cannot begin to control, the target;
assets that have subsequently been divested or disposed of; or
if the acquisition is of an asset, the acquisition does not have the effect that a person will, or can, acquire all, or substantially all of the assets of a business, and the market value of the asset is <$2 million.
This is a welcome and pragmatic refinement to the new merger regime and ensures that only current, relevant holdings are considered when assessing whether notification is required.
Waivers
The amendments simplify and clarify the notification waiver process, giving businesses greater certainty. A brief summary of the deal and the ACCC’s decision will now only appear on the public register within one business day of the ACCC’s decision, keeping the transaction confidential until that point. For sensitive deals, for example, surprise hostile bids or some voluntary financial-sector transfers, publication on the ACCC’s Acquisitions Register may be deferred or omitted altogether. The ACCC must rule on a waiver within 25 business days; if it fails to do so, the ACCC is deemed to have refused the application for a notification waiver.
Further changes to other notification exemptions
The changes to the new merger regime significantly broaden and clarify certain exemptions from notification obligations, particularly in the context of financial and restructuring transactions. These updates include expanded exemptions in relation to external administration, routine financial market operations, nominees and financing arrangements, as well as exemptions for foreign exchange contracts and some superannuation-related acquisitions.
Key considerations for dealmakers
With less than a fortnight until the new mandatory merger regime takes effect, if you are planning to do a deal in 2026, proactive and early consideration of merger control will be necessary to ensure compliance and minimise deal risk. The latest amendments provide some greater clarity and targeted exemptions, but also create additional complexity, and the new regime will require careful planning and early engagement on regulatory issues.
We recommend you:
Assess upcoming transactions and ensure regulatory conditions precedent are fit for purpose: reviewing your 2026 deal pipeline now will help to identify transactions that may be suitable for waiver applications, otherwise trigger notification obligations, or would benefit from new exemptions under the revised regime. For ongoing deals, it would be timely to consider whether conditions precedent remain ‘fit for purpose’ or need to be varied, given the progressive nature of the proposed amendments.
Update internal processes: it will be important to ensure your M&A, legal and compliance teams are across the new thresholds, exemptions and notification requirements, and adjust internal protocols and timelines accordingly. For firms that regularly acquire and divest other businesses, an M&A register will facilitate compliance with the 3-year look back requirements.
Engage early for advice: seek early guidance on structuring, application of exemptions and notification strategy to avoid delay.
For a tailored briefing or confidential discussion about how the new merger regime may affect your business, please contact our Competition team.
[1] Competition and Consumer (Notification of Acquisitions) Determination 2025 (Cth); Competition and Consumer (Notification of Acquisitions) Amendment (2025 Measures No.1) Determination2025 (Cth). [2] The ‘3-year look back’ test does not apply to the acquisition of discrete assets. [3] Note that the votes of entities who are considered associates only because they have entered into, or have proposed to enter into, an agreement with the person for minority shareholder protect rights is disregarded for this determination. [4] As above. [5] For completeness, acquisitions of assets that are not interests in land or intellectual property and that occur in the ordinary course of business are already excluded from notification obligations under the new merger regime. [6] Specific examples provided in the Explanatory Statement include: (i) acquiring an interest in land for an office premises, headquarters or other routine trading activities; (ii) a property developer acquiring land for residential or commercial development; (iii) retailers acquiring land for a warehouse to store inventory; (iii) a manufacturer leasing land for a new manufacturing facility; (iv) an energy generator acquiring land for a solar farm; or (v) an energy distributor acquiring land to build pylons on. [7] These are rights that require registration under a statutory scheme including in relation to: mining, quarrying, prospecting, water entitlements or land for forestry operations.
The rising cost of housing across the Western Slope is forcing people to relocate, downsize and leave jobs, even in small, rural communities such as Parachute and Battlement Mesa.
This trend has drawn the attention of affordable housing developers such as Aspen-based Headwaters Housing Partners, which is building a 68-unit apartment complex with a commercial retail space on the site of the former Parachute Inn, just off Interstate 70 near the entrance to town.
Parachute Town Manager Travis Elliott and other local leaders have helped support and shape the project, which is aimed at local middle-income residents making about 60% to 100% of the area median income (AMI). In Garfield County, that median income number is $74,000 for a one-person household.
“I get excited about this project for numerous reasons,” Elliott said. “It really checks a lot of boxes for the town and our strategic goals, and our future, not just on the affordable-housing front, but in terms of revitalization of the community in general.”
Elliott, who grew up in Grand Junction and earned his master of business administration degree at the University of Kansas, always knew he wanted to work in public service for a local government.
Before taking on the town manager position in Parachute four years ago, he worked in several different roles for the city of Aspen and later became the assistant town manager for Snowmass Village.
Part of his decision to leave the Roaring Fork Valley was wanting to live in a town where he could afford to buy a home but still be able to get out on the river or into the mountains.
“I was in a deed-restricted condo (in Snowmass Village), which was absolutely fantastic because I quite literally won the lottery in terms of the affordable housing,” Elliott said. “So I was extremely grateful for that, but it was always very temporary in my mind because it was constrained in terms of space and just the economics of it.”
State Division of Housing representative James Russell, second from right, tours the Parachute Inn development site May 22. The state has provided more than $6 million in loans and a grant to support the workforce housing project in Parachute. Credit: Eleanor Bennett/Aspen Journalism & Aspen Public Radio
Rising home prices
Although housing costs are still lower in Parachute and neighboring Battlement Mesa than much of the Roaring Fork and Colorado River valleys, the average price of a single-family home has more than doubled over the past decade.
Parachute, which had a population of about 1,400 people as of the 2020 Census, saw the median sale price for a single-family home grow to $393,304 in 2024 from $190,500 in 2015. Battlement Mesa, which was initially developed by Exxon during an oil boom in the late 1970s, is an unincorporated planned-unit development outside Parachute town limits with a population of about 5,400 people as of 2020. The median price of a single-family residence there grew to $400,000 in 2024 from $241,500 in 2015.
This home-price data is according to preliminary results from a new regional housing-needs assessment covering Parachute to Aspen that is now required by the state as part of its effort to address affordability challenges across Colorado. The valleywide assessment is being led by the city of Aspen and Economic and Planning Systems, a firm that the city is partnering with to conduct research and analyze the data.
In the Parachute area, rising home prices and a limited housing inventory have put additional pressure on the local rental market, making it hard for some who work in town to get housing there. According to Parachute’s 2022 comprehensive plan, over half of the people who work in town commute in from places such as Battlement Mesa, Grand Junction, and other parts of Mesa and Garfield counties.
This trend of people not being able to live where they work and a growing interconnection between local economies and housing networks is something Elliott has seen throughout the region.
“It’s quite literally just a connected trickle up and down,” Elliott said. “A lot of our residents that live here are commuting up to Glenwood, and then a lot of those residents are commuting up to Carbondale, and then a lot of those residents are commuting up even further.”
Parachute Town Manager Travis Elliott stands outside the town hall Dec. 17. Elliott, who has also worked in local government in Aspen and Snowmass Village, sees the Parachute Inn workforce housing project as part of a larger effort to revitalize a once-booming oil town. Credit: Courtesy of Travis Elliott
Boom and bust
In late May, Aspen-based developers Adam Roy and Grady Lenkin, who are with Headwaters Housing, watched as a bulldozer began demolishing the former Parachute Inn.
The motel was built in the early 1980s to house oil and gas workers just before the “Black Sunday” oil bust of 1982, when thousands of people lost their jobs after Exxon shut down its oil shale project in the area.
Despite the economic downturn, the Parachute Inn remained open, serving as both a motel and temporary housing for some residents in the area, until a few years ago when it failed the town’s health-and-safety inspection and permanently closed its doors.
“It served its purpose for decades, and eventually got tired and rundown,” Roy said. “So we bought it, and now we’re in the process of tearing it down and converting it to workforce housing for the town of Parachute.”
When Roy and Lenkin first decided they wanted to purchase the building, they had a hard time getting a bank loan because there wasn’t a precedent for other similar affordable-housing complexes in the town.
“No bank wanted to be one of the first to take a risk on this kind of development in Parachute since there’s no comparable projects in the market that we can look at and know they succeeded,” Lenkin said. “Another factor was Black Sunday, which really crushed the community and the economy, and a lot of the local banks have an institutional memory of that.”
But in 2022, the developers were able to secure a $640,000 loan from the state to purchase the old motel and began the yearslong process of turning it into a mix of studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom rental units.
Adam Roy and Grady Lenkin, who are with Aspen-based Headwaters Housing Partners, talk with a state official from the Division of Housing during demolition of the former Parachute Inn on May 22. After the motel closed for health-and-safety reasons several years ago, the developers secured a loan from the state to purchase the property and turn it into workforce housing. Credit: Eleanor Bennett / Aspen Journalism & Aspen Public Radio
‘Missing middle’
Initially, Headwaters Housing assumed it would be building a very-low-income project for people who commute farther upvalley for work, but that changed after Roy and Lenkin spent time conducting market studies and meeting with local residents and town leaders such as Elliott.
“What we learned is who this project was ultimately going to serve, and it was truly the town of Parachute,” Roy said. “And they weren’t necessarily screaming for ultra-affordability — they needed housing to house their workforce.”
According to preliminary results from the new regional housing needs assessment looking at housing trends over the next decade, rental units will be most needed for Parachute residents making about 50% to 90% of AMI, which translates to between $37,000 and $66,600 a year for a one-person household in Garfield County. The next-largest need is for people making 110% to 135% of AMI, which is between $81,400 and $99,900 for one person.
The majority of the 68 new apartments will be listed for people making less than AMI, with 25 units restricted to households earning up to 80% of AMI, another 25 units for households earning up to 100% of AMI, and 18 units to be rented at market rate.
“We said, ‘What do you want to see here?’ And it was a project where, you know, a teacher can afford to live, where a manager at the new Love’s gas station can afford to live, where the assistant police chief can afford to live,” Lenkin said. “We worked backwards from all of those job descriptions to see, ‘OK, how much are these people making?’ And that’s how we designed the income limitations of the project.”
They also heard from community members that they would like to see the roughly 3,000-square-foot commercial space be preserved as a laundromat, which the old motel used to have.
“We heard in our public outreach that this was a huge asset to the community,” Roy said. “You could have, for instance, a small market up front and a laundromat in the back, or if need be, it could be entirely a laundromat.”
Roy and Lenkin are also partnering with other local governments in western Colorado, including Fruita and Grand Junction, on several other workforce housing projects targeting middle-income earners.
The Parachute Inn was originally built to house oil and gas workers just before the “Black Sunday” oil bust of 1982. Despite the economic downturn, the business remained open for several more decades, serving as both a motel and temporary housing for some residents in the area. Credit: Eleanor Bennett / Aspen Journalism & Aspen Public Radio
State funding
Headwaters Housing estimates that the total cost of the Parachute Inn project will be roughly $13.5 million, with some of that money coming from private capital and state subsidies. In addition to the $640,000 loan from the state to buy the property, which the developers have now paid off, the state Housing Board awarded the project a $5 million loan last year to help build the apartment complex.
The developers also partnered with the town of Parachute to secure an additional grant this year from the state to help cover the cost of upgrading public infrastructure surrounding the project, including roads, sidewalks, utilities and accessibility features. The project will also benefit from a tax abatement provided through the Garfield County Housing Authority.
Colorado lawmakers have shifted state policy toward supporting more middle-income projects in recent years, which has drawn criticism from some housing advocates who worry there will be less money for lower-income families.
In an email, a spokesperson with the state’s Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), which oversees the Division of Housing (DOH), defended its programs that support the so-called “missing middle” in some communities.
“While addressing the needs for the lower-income population remains pressing, there is a demonstrated need for middle-income housing, which, if not addressed, can put even more pressure on the lower-income housing supply,” the spokesperson said. “The legislature has chosen to prioritize this need through several programs that DOLA administers.”
The spokesperson also pointed out that some of the funding that it received for middle-income housing projects in the wake of the pandemic is limited.
“With the influx of American Rescue Plan Act dollars, and the ability for those dollars to serve higher incomes, DOH was able to play more of a role in the middle-income space,” the spokesperson said. “However, those funds are close to being expended, and so DOH’s role in the middle-income space may be more limited moving forward.”
Town leaders such as Elliott and Town Councilor Claudia Flores Cruz maintain that Parachute needs more of both types of housing.
“I would love to see more housing opportunities of all kinds,” Flores Cruz said. “Whether it’s tiny homes, studios or trailers, just to be able to accommodate everyone in their unique housing needs.”
Another affordable-housing development is underway in neighboring Battlement Mesa. The Aster Place project will have about 60 rental units reserved for people making between 30% and 80% of AMI, which translates to between $22,200 and $59,200 a year for a one-person household in Garfield County. The group Lincoln Avenue Communities, which has projects across the country, is behind the development. The group is also working with the Garfield County Housing Authority, which is expected to allocate eight low-income vouchers to the project.
Claudia Flores Cruz, back left, a Family Resource Center coordinator for Garfield District 16 schools, and Jennifer Baugh, Garfield 16 schools’ superintendent, stand with a group of kids outside the Grand Valley Center for Family Learning in Parachute. Baugh and Flores Cruz said there are families and teachers at their schools who are struggling to find sustainable housing. Credit: Nicole Loschke / Courtesy of Garfield County School District 16
Different needs
Flores Cruz also helps run the Family Resource Center for Garfield County School District 16. In her role there, she got to know the families who lived in some of the units at the old Parachute Inn.
When the motel had to close for health-and-safety reasons, most of those families couldn’t afford to stay in the area.
“You don’t want to see anybody homeless, but at the same time, you just didn’t want to see anybody living in those kinds of conditions, especially when they had kids,” Flores Cruz said. “Some of the families ended up going to Utah and other states where they had family — they just weren’t able to be successful in our small town with not enough resources.”
Flores Cruz still works with other families in similar situations who live out of their cars. She also knows teachers who are struggling, doubling up in homes to afford rent or looking elsewhere for work.
“One of the biggest workforces that we have here is our school district,” she said. “But we have a lot of new teachers every year, and that really hurts a child’s development, you know, just having that anxiety of like, ‘Oh, my teacher lost their housing, and now, after Christmas break, I’m going to have a new teacher.’”
Jennifer Baugh, who moved to the area four years ago to serve as the superintendent for the school district, said the housing challenges also impact their ability to hire other employees, including bus drivers, cafeteria staff and administrative assistants.
“One of the things that I think we’ve noticed too is other school districts upvalley have either engaged in, or actively have, employee housing for their staff,” Baugh said. “That isn’t a conversation we’re having yet here in Garfield 16, … but we are finding that employers in the region are having to take that on and think seriously about it.”
Baugh has also noticed more families moving to the area from upvalley communities because of affordability. At the start of this school year, the district saw 21 new students transfer from Rifle, six from Glenwood Springs, four from Silt and two from Carbondale.
“In addition to housing needs, this creates another challenge because oftentimes the parents, their jobs are still upvalley, so you have a lot of kids that need child care or other programming until the parents can get home,” she said.
When it comes to tackling the housing challenge, Baugh and Flores Cruz hope the town will keep partnering with developers such as Headwaters Housing and outside funders such as the state to make sure people with different income ranges all have a safe place to live.
For his part, Elliott agrees, and says projects such as the Parachute Inn are a big step in the right direction.
“This type of partnership is really the poster child for what is going to be the solution for solving affordable-housing crises around the state, … and it has the potential to be really transformative for the community,” Elliott said. “I’m really excited to not only see the building finish, but to see what families and residents eventually reside there and end up calling it home.”
The apartment building is currently under construction and is expected to open next fall.
This story was produced through a social justice reporting collaboration between Aspen Journalism and Aspen Public Radio.
