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
-
Incentivising distributors – key contractual considerations
Incentivising distributors is an effective way to increase sales, reduce inventory and accelerate adoption of new products. This article explores various methods, from incentive programs to vacations and gamification, plus advice on measuring performance and accountability.
-
Federal Court class actions – requirements explained
This article provides an overview of the mechanics behind a Class Action in the Federal Court of Australia. It covers the requirements to commence the action, the ability for members to opt out, and the limits on Class Actions, giving readers a comprehensive understanding of the process and obligations.
-
Registration of .au domain names – what does this mean for businesses?
From 24 March 2022, any persons with a verified connection to Australia will be able to apply for a domain name ending in .au, also known as a direct name or second level name (Direct Name). Any business can apply for a Direct Name as long as they meet the eligibility criteria under the .au…
-
Director’s right to review company records
As a director, it is important to understand your obligations and rights, including the right to access the company books. Explore this further in this article, which examines the case of Oswal v Burrup Holdings Limited [2011] FCA 609 and the implications of a company refusing a director access.
-
Use of a competitors trade marks for comparative advertising
Comparative advertising can be a powerful tool, but it must be done within the bounds of the law. Learn more about the legal implications of comparative advertising in Australia, including the case of GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited (No 2) [2018] FCA 1.
-
Uber found in breach of Australian privacy laws
This article provides an overview of interesting decisions of Australian Courts in Corporate Law, Technology Law and Intellectual Property. With cases on Trade Marks, Copyright, Defamation, Negligence, Joint Ventures and Confidential Information, it is an invaluable resource for anyone interested in these areas.
-
Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code 2021 update
The Therapeutic Goods Administration has released the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code 2021 (Cth), introducing changes to distinguish between physical and online therapeutic goods, updates to medical device and medicine advertising, and more. Get the details to stay informed and ensure compliance with the new rules.
-
7-Eleven customer survey: implied consent?
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner found 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd are in breach of the Australian Privacy Principles (APP’s). Learn more about the findings, implications, and how businesses can comply with the APP’s.
-
Use of confidential information – the springboard injunction
This article examines the UK decision of Forse & ors v Secarma Ltd & ors [2019] EWCA Civ 215, which discussed the legal concept of a springboard injunction, and its implications in Australia. The Court must consider similar principles to determine if an injunction should be granted.
