The corporate regulator has appealed the Federal Court’s decision to dismiss ASIC’s proceedings, alleging that Colonial First State and Commonwealth Bank (CBA) breached conflicted remuneration laws.
In a statement on Wednesday, ASIC said it’s taking the matter back to court.
ASIC previously alleged that Colonial and CBA breached conflicted remuneration laws when they reached an agreement in which Colonial paid CBA to distribute its Essential Super product through CBA’s branch and digital channels. Essential Super was distributed to over 390,000 individuals.
The Federal Court then dismissed ASIC’s proceedings on 29 September.
But according to ASIC deputy chair, the corporate regulator is now concerned that the court’s decision would limit the operation of conflicted remuneration laws introduced in 2012.
“Conflicted remuneration has the potential to cause significant consumer harm because it can prevent consumers from receiving appropriate advice and financial products free of influence,” Sarah Court said.
The conflicted and other banned remuneration provisions were introduced in June 2012 as part of the Future of Financial Advice reforms, representing the Australian government’s response to the 2009 inquiry into financial products and services in Australia by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services.
The appeal will be heard by the Full Federal Court on a date to be determined.
ASIC have a major internal cultural issue and a damaged brand.
They have continued to be obsessively vitriolic
& overly aggressive despite experiencing decisions against them over the last few years.
It is though ASIC have a model of retribution & persecution fully ingrained within their culture and it needs to change.
The lack of respect & trust they hold within financial services is as low as it could possibly go.
They are like the local cop who bullies everyone in town & still demands respect and to be listened to.
They are drunk with power & money & hold an ideological hatred for financial services and advisers.
When did CFS negotiate this arrangement with CBA?….was it prior to or after FOFA was implemented ?
Was it prior to Bill Shorten’s announcement that this remuneration was to be grandfathered because based on Shorten’s high level legal advice, there existed a contractual right between the product issuer & the distribution arm for the continued receipt of that remuneration?
How much of the taxpayers money is going firstly on ASIC’s lost case and secondly, how much is now being spent on the appeal??
Easy to do when you’re not paying for it…
Of course ASIC will appeal. They can because they can have this action funded by advisers via their levy. Pretty easy decision to make when you have no responsibility for the excessive lawyer fees. What a rort.
Who pays for ASIC’s activism; financial advisers or taxpayers?
Advisers via the levy, but if the case is successful the proceeds go to ASIC general revenue. It’s why the levy increased over 300% in 3 years prior to the freeze and was over 50% more than ASICs prediction in 19.20. it’s a global joke how Australian Advisers are screwed over.
still waiting for ASIC action over union funds conflicted remuneration, vertical integration and paying referral commissions…
ASIC is corrupt