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
-
What exactly is a collaboration contract?
Also referred to as a collaboration agreement, a collaboration contract (Collaboration Contract) is an agreement between two (2) or more organisations (or individuals) that want to collaborate to pursue a defined or limited business purpose. In essence a Collaboration Contract is a species of unincorporated joint venture because the collaborators have to contribute resources and…
-
What are Shareholders Agreements?
Shareholders agreements are legal contracts that regulate the rights and obligations of shareholders, including confidentiality, dispute resolution, dividend policies, pre-emptive rights, and more.
-
What exactly is a Franchise Agreement?
Franchising agreements are legally binding relationships between franchisors and franchisees. But what makes them different from other agreements? Learn more about the key clauses of the code of conduct that must be observed in order to ensure a successful franchising agreement.
-
Enforcing confidentiality agreement terms
Learn how to protect confidential information and the legal remedies available if a breach occurs. Find out what elements must be established for a successful claim.
-
Distribution agreements – an introduction
This article provides an overview of Distribution Agreements, including common clauses, potential risks, and how Dundas Lawyers can assist. Learn how to protect each party’s interests and ensure a successful agreement.
-
Terminating a contract with no set end date
In practice, we come across commercial agreements of varying types (Contracts) that, for whatever reason, don’t provide for a term or an end date (Expiry Date). There may have been reasons for this at the time that can no longer be recalled. It raises a number of issues, particularly where the subject matter of the…
-
Proposed amendments to the requirements for listing on the ASX
Australian Securities Exchange Ltd (ASX) proposes changes to admission requirements to maintain market quality and integrity. Thresholds raised, minimum free float and spread tests strengthened. Refusal of admission examples to be included in Australian Securities Exchange Ltd (ASX) Guidance Note 1. Changes could be implemented as early as July 2016.
-
Priority issues and the PPS Register
This article takes a closer look at the PPSA and how it affects secured creditors, exploring the Default Priority Rules, Attachment Times and priority time, as well as examples of situations where more specific priority rules apply.
-
Vesting unperfected security interests on liquidation – register or perish!
In White v Spiers Earthworks Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 139 (White v Spiers), it was held that a security interest granted by a company will vest with the Grantor on insolvency or bankruptcy, unless it is registered on the PPSR. Businesses must take steps to register security interests to avoid potential loss.
