I understand from media reports that the findings from the inquest into the 2016 Dreamworld tragedy are to be handed down later today.
I've nothing further to add, just drawing it to attention - depending on what's said there may be some market reaction but given media coverage I'm assuming that a "guilty" finding is already priced in.
Well they certainly copped some criticism.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-24/dreamworld-accident-inquest-coroner-findings/11993742
From the article:
Mr McDougall told a Brisbane court Dreamworld had a reputation as a "modern, world-class theme park" yet its safety and maintenance systems were "rudimentary at best".
He said there had been a "systemic failure by Dreamworld in relation to all aspects of safety" and that he was referring parent company Ardent Leisure for possible prosecution.
"[There were] frighteningly unsophisticated systems in place at Dreamworld," Mr McDougall said.
"It was simply a matter of time. That time came on October 25 [2016]."
The coroner said there was no proper engineering oversight, nor were any holistic risk assessments ever conducted on the Thunder River Rapids ride.
"Whilst there were various occasions … hazard identification risk assessment should have been triggered … this was never done," he said
"Owners should be risk-averse. That was not the case with respect of [this ride]."
"Dreamworld placed significant reliance on ride operators to identify risks of issues.
"It is unfathomable that this serious and important task fell to staff … who didn't have the requisite qualifications or skill sets to identify such risks."
Mr McDougall said "shoddy record keeping" was a significant contributor.
He said it was unclear why basic engineer controls — such as a water level monitor — were not installed on the ride.
He concluded a basic automated detection system would have been inexpensive.
Mr McDougall said he would refer Dreamworld's parent company, Ardent Leisure, to the Queensland Office of Industrial Relations.
He said Ardent Leisure "may have committed an offence under workplace laws".
"Whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed to prosecution is [a matter for them]," he said.
He said he would also refer his findings to the Board of Professional Engineers Queensland.