ASIC is currently conducting an investigation into the AMP Group for fees for service conduct and related false or misleading statements to ASIC.
ASIC alleges that customers were charged ongoing fees without being provided the service for which they were paying.
In October, ASIC issued a notice to AMP’s legal firm Clayton Utz to produce certain documents, which the company declined to do on the basis they are subject to a claim of legal professional privilege by AMP Limited.
ASIC is seeking a declaration from the Federal Court that the documents are not subject to privilege or that privilege has been waived by AMP.
It is also requiring Clayton Utz to produce the documents and ancillary orders.
The case will not be heard by the Federal Court until February 2019.
It would seem AMP together with their legal advisers are entitled to defend their claim of legal privilege. This right applies to all corporate and private citizens and needs to be defended / tested in the proper avenues. Any variation to this starts to challenge some of our rights. Who knows- you may find yourself in a situation where you need to rely on legal privilege.
Of course AMP could elect to waive privilege and disclose information, but that is their choice, not the regulator.
I am not looking to comment on the merit or otherwise of any alleged wrong doing, rather looking at adhering to long established legal protections.
Yes it does seem that doesn’t it. Do you really think that the multitude of victims in this scenario have anywhere to turn, as individuals – of course they don’t. When can they ever fight a large institution, as individuals, to win in our one sided court system. While ever the system allows the litigious approach of these big organizations to continue, unabated. I personally think this system will change to a more equitable system where it is seen that everyone has an opportunity to use our court system, no matter their standing or economic circumstance.
AMP have no choice but to fight this to the death. If they get criminally convicted for a breach of S912A, the consequences are a loss of licence. That is, this is an existential matter for AMP.
The problem is, the evidence is already in, they cannot contradict the evidence given in front of the RC but they can and must fight tooth and nail to prevent it being used in a court of law in a criminal matter.
You’re right, Steve, however, we all know AMP will just end up paying a non-material fine and keep on taking the mickey.
May as well look at the correlation between the old volume bonus payments and the new marketing allowance . Nothing to see here……
How crazy is this, they know they have done the wrong thing, and, like the big 4 they challenge everything in the courts to the until all appeals are exhausted. Access by these organizations to over use of our court system should be punished by SIGNIFICANTLY heavier fines and costs. If there are criminal aspects to the Fees for No Service Claim, then bring the perpetrators before the criminal court. Serious consequences will be the only thing that will reign them in!
Let’s see how serious the regulator is at cleaning up the industry, with the cost levelled at advisers now skyrocketing everyday time to give honest quality advisers a shot at earning a living! Get rid of the real cowboys like AMP & bank owned franchises used to sell in house products with conflicted ridiculous arrangements in place, demand more then touch screens in the foyer of these advice practices as a solution ASIC get the job done!
I think the real cowboys are the accountants telling people to set up SMSF still without licences . Nothing to see here as well .