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
-
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.
-
Is it a debt? – legal test and creditors’ statutory demands
This article examines a Court decision that could have a significant impact on creditors making statutory demands. Learn more about the case of Matrix Group Co Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 1042, and the implications for creditors, as well as relevant legislation and case law.
-
Director identification numbers now a reality
The Federal Government has passed a law requiring all directors to obtain a Director Identification Number (DIN). Learn more about the implications of this law, including the potential penalties for non-compliance.
-
Present entitlement in trusts – what it means
Explore the High Court’s interpretation of “present entitlement” under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth). Learn when a person has a vested interest in trust assets and how the trustee’s discretion affects the beneficiary’s entitlement.
-
What exactly is a franked dividend?
Discover how dividend imputation works and how the amount of tax you owe on dividends can be affected by your marginal tax rate and the company tax rate. Learn about the different types of franked dividends, such as fully franked and partially franked, and how they can impact your finances.
