Whilst the financial services sector seems to have embraced the innovation economy, a recent case shows just how important it is for Australian Financial Services Licence, (AFS) holders to take care when advertising their products.
A recent case brought by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, (ASIC) is a reminder that when advertising investment schemes precise language needs to be used.
‘ASIC Approved’
Recently Huntley Management Limited, (Huntley), an AFS holder and responsible entity of managed investment schemes, came under fire from ASIC.
Huntley’s had stated on their website and later in a newspaper, that they acted “as responsible entity, custodian, trustee and/or manager for over 40 managed investment projects approved by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’. ASIC brought a civil penalties claim in the Federal Court of Australia for the use of the words, “approved by ASIC”. ASIC claimed it was a breach of s12DB (1)(e) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act. This section states that a person must not:
“make a false or misleading representation that services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, uses or benefits”.
Huntley faced a fine of up to $3 Million, however pleaded guilty and settled with ASIC by agreeing to pay a fine of $20,000. The lesson here is that even apparently minor misstatements can have significant consequences.
ASIC is the body tasked with registration of managed investment schemes and the issuance of Australian Financial Securities Licences. However, it has made it clear that this in no way means that they approve the contents of the scheme or any financial product that has been issued by a licence holder; and to claim otherwise may be misleading and deceptive.
ASIC provides to the financial services industry the Regulatory Guide 234 Advertising Financial Products and Services (including credit): Good Practice Guidance as a guideline for financial suppliers to meet the requirements and their obligations under the act.
Links and further references
Legislation
Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth)
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
Cases
Further information about misleading and deceptive conduct
If you need advice on misleading and deceptive conduct or avoiding liability for misstatements, please contact me for a confidential and obligation free and discussion:
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
Related insights about misleading and deceptive conduct
-
IP contracts subject to restrictive trade practice provisions
Learn how the repeal of Section 51(3) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) affects businesses licensing or assigning intellectual property (IP) rights and the penalties associated with a breach with this comprehensive guide.
-
Company funds must be used for company purposes
This article examines the legal principles behind when it is permissible to use company funds, focusing on the case of Re D G Brims and Sons Pty Ltd (1995) 16 ASCR 559, which established that company funds must only be used for company purposes and not to pay for legal costs of proceedings for the…
-
The running account defence to unfair preference claims
Creditors who have been paid by a customer on credit may find themselves facing an Unfair Preference claim letter from a liquidator. Learn more about the defences available to creditors and how to protect yourself from repaying more than your fair share.
-
Unfair preferences & the set-off defence
Under section 588FA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) an unfair preference is defined as a transaction, such as payment of an outstanding debt, between a company and an unsecured creditor which results in that unsecured creditor receiving more than it would have received if it had to prove in the winding up of the…
-
Need a reseller agreement?
This article provides an overview of the considerations when entering into a Joint Venture, including inputs, outputs, legal and tax implications of different Joint Venture vehicles. Get the facts you need to make an informed decision.
-
Unfair preferences – the Doctrine of Ultimate Effect
Explore the Doctrine of Ultimate Effect, running account defence and more in this article by Dundas Lawyers. Learn how these concepts can provide a defence to an unfair preference claim under Section 588FA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
-
Bullying in the workplace by a body corporate
This investigation reveals the legal implications of workplace bullying in a body corporate. Find out what the Obligations of Reasonableness and the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) mean for workers and how to apply for an order to stop the bullying.
-
Director’s duties – the case of MG Corrosion Consultants PL v Gilmour
The case of MG Corrosion Consultants Pty Ltd v Gilmour [2014] FCA 990 serves as a reminder of the need for Directors to uphold their obligations under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Uncover the Courts findings and the implications for Directors.
-
What exactly is a bare trust?
This article explores the taxation implications of setting up a Bare Trust, from income tax to capital gains tax and beyond. Learn more about the duties of a Trustee and the considerations to keep in mind when creating a Bare Trust.
