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
-
ACCC guide on country of origin labelling requirements
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has released guidelines for businesses to comply with country of origin legislation and avoid serious penalties. Learn more about the safe harbour defence available and the criteria businesses must meet to stay compliant.
-
Prohibition on the acquisition of relevant interests
Section 606 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) prohibits acquiring a relevant interest in voting shares, with exceptions. This article explains the definitions and thresholds that apply, provides a full list of exceptions, relevant case studies, and further resources for legal advice.
-
Transfer Duty in business acquisitions
This article explores the application of transfer duty in business acquisitions, including what it is, what is a dutiable transaction, dutiable property, dutiable value, unencumbered value, when it is determined, and who must pay.
-
The GST going concern exemption explained
When selling a business in Australia, it’s important to know the going concern exemption to goods and services tax (GST). Learn more about the applicable threshold requirements and legislative references.
-
Drag along rights can be enforced in Court
This article examines a 2013 case, William McCausland v Surfing Hardware International Holdings Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 902, which serves as a reminder of the enforceability of drag along clauses in shareholders agreements and the complexity of factors that can affect the legal position of the parties involved.
-
Redeemable preference shares – what to know
This article discusses the rights, obligations and taxation implications of Redeemable Preference Shares (REDP), hybrid securities with both debt and equity characteristics as defined by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). Case law examples and the process for issuing REDP according to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) are also discussed.
-
Restraint of trade & commercial contracts – a systemic approach
This article provides an invaluable overview of restraint of trade clauses (ROTs). It examines the enforceability of ROTs, their test of reasonableness, and the role of the Court in determining their reasonableness, providing a valuable guide for those wishing to draft and enforce them.
-
Debt collection – done right
Uncovering debt and how to recover it effectively can be challenging. Dundas Lawyers can advise on strengths and weaknesses of a debt claim and options to advance it.
-
Businesses’ obligations when trading online – Competition and Consumer Act 2010
The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) provides legal remedies for those aggrieved by a business’s online conduct, such as penalties, damages, etc. This article explores remedies for misleading, deceptive, unconscionable conduct and unfair contract terms.
