On 12 September 2018, ASIC commenced civil penalty action in the Federal Court of Australia, Melbourne, against Dover Financial Advisers and its sole director, Terry McMaster.
ASIC alleges that Dover misled and deceived clients from September 2015, when it commenced using its ‘Client Protection Policy’, to March 2018 when Dover withdrew the Protection Policy in response to ASIC’s concerns, because the Protection Policy:
- contained false and misleading representations as to the rights and protections available to clients;
- created a significant imbalance in Dover’s and its authorised representatives’ rights and obligations compared with those of clients; and
- sought to protect the interests of Dover and its authorised representatives by avoiding liability to clients for poor financial advice.
ASIC alleges that Mr McMaster was knowingly concerned in that conduct. He was named as the key person on Dover’s Australian Financial Services Licence, was its sole director and the only responsible manager during the relevant period.
ASIC seeks declarations that Dover and Mr McMaster contravened the financial services law; and pecuniary penalties against both for those contraventions.
This proceeding continues ASIC’s enforcement action in relation to Dover’s Protection Policy, which to date has resulted in the cancellation of Dover’s AFSL and Mr McMaster’s permanent exit from the financial services industry.
The Protection Policy purported to be “designed to ensure that every Dover client get [sic] the best possible advice and the maximum protection available under the law”. However, in ASIC’s view it was designed to burden clients with the potential liability for losses resulting from advice that was negligent, inappropriate or not in a client’s best interests. This is inconsistent with or voided by the financial services law in the Corporations Act.
The focus of ASIC’s current Federal Court proceedings and the previous court enforceable undertaking provided by Dover concerns the Dover Protection Policy. This action has resulted from concerns uncovered by ASIC during an investigation that commenced in 2017.
On 29 March 2018, following ASIC’s intervention, Dover complied with ASIC’s requirement that it withdraw the Protection Policy. On 28 June 2018, ASIC accepted a court enforceable undertaking from Dover and Mr McMaster, by which Dover’s AFSL was cancelled and Mr McMaster was removed from the financial services industry.
Does anyone else think Pete’s done Terry a favour getting Terry off the front page?!?
mcmaster will make a comeback after the federal court exonerates him
False
very funny but true
[quote=Anonymous]
you know what they say about pioneers, they get shot
[/quote]
What are you talking about? I have never heard that.
You should get out more
Sorry Terry won’t be taking ANY advice from you. You’re of poor fame and character. Stop hiding behind your keyboard and flooding these forums with your rants.
why are they pursuing him so ruthlessly, i think they want him bankrupted
Suing Dover could be a mistake on ASICs part. A few inconvenient facts might end up seeing the light of day. Let’s take a look at a few…
ASIC had Dover’s Client Protection Policy in their possession for two years but never raised any concerns.
In a bid to improve their systems, Dover requested a voluntary audit from ASIC. This was carried out back in 2016. In the months which followed, Dover received no feedback, not even an interim report.
Terry McMaster stated at the Royal Commission that the contentious clauses in the client protection policy were ‘never relied upon and never used’. This is supported by the fact that Dover had to write to every client ‘affected’ by the CPP, and to this day have never received a complaint.
The ‘contentious’ clauses in the client protection policy simply addressed the fact that all SOAs had to be checked by Dover before they could be sent to clients. In effect, the CPP was used as leverage to ensure advisers submitted their SOAs to Dover first. If the adviser followed procedure, then they would be fully covered if anything went wrong.
Over the last 18 months of it’s operation, Dover recruited 130 advisers from the big banks. With no advisers selling their financial products, guess who is losing money…..? Yep – the banks! The same banks which fund ASIC to the tune of several hundred million dollars a year.
See a connection anyone?
Shut up Terry
I’d be a concerned observer too if I saw my life and everything I built crumbling away Terry. Have a nice day in gaol.
dont’ worry Dover is heavily asset backed with net tangible assets of $6m and not filled with crap like intangibles either, it’s hard cash and receivables
why would he go to jail. he’ll just pay a fine of $1m or so and $5m in legal costs. but neither Terry nor Dover are worried. Dover has a $6m in liquid assets on its balance sheet that’s right $6m that’s more than other licensees
so Dover (and terry) are well equipped to either pay the fine levied on it (should the legal action succeed) and or to defend itself.
ASIC need to get a shovel and finish off the snake that is Dover…. It still has a bit of poison
you sir or maam are too kind calling it a snake. that’s an insult to snakes
No Terry
let it be, maybe that is what we need to be shown, an incompetent regulator who sits on their hand. unfortunately, dover will be the collateral damage. but we’ll all be better for it.
everyone is upset with terry and dover because he was trying to move financial planning in the right direction
you know what they say about pioneers, they get shot
thanks dover and terry for taking one for the team. good luck
we’ll be watching obviously with popcorn (mine will have extra caramel on top) in hand
i am so happy it’s him that’s getting ripped apart, must be humiliating for such an egomaniac
everyone is laughing behind his back 🙂
In over 35 years in this industry, I dont think I have ever felt so concerned about my longevity in this industry & my clients best interests. The fact that everything is so public nowadays and yet here we have ASIC with clear civil and criminal breaches against CBA, ANZ, Westpac, Amp and Industry funds … and yet there is a real and vivid reluctance to prosecute. But make a fuss, a show about going after the little fish, advisers, accountants, brokers etc…….. it looks bad, and is probably much worse for good honest people in this business and the relationship they have with their clients – best word to describe ASIC’s lack of action in the obvious areas is ‘shameful’.
Also 30 years in the industry and agree wholeheartedly with this comment.
it’s time to for us to leave the industry and do something less hideous. good luck to those who can remain and challenge and fight the banks they will try everything to destroy the ifa’s if they can’t have it no one can and they have the government and the regulator on their side
RIP Dover
Another set of Public Servants – sorry this is an insult to refer Asic as Public Servants
only civil penalty. i thought they would be pursuing criminal charges
Just wait for the Royal Commissions interim report in a few days. It’s not over yet. It’s only the beginning!! Hehehe
they are going to roast him, legal eagle he was yes, legal eagle
a legal eagle is an astute lawyer, not a bumbling fool who faints under questioning. if he believed he did the right thing he should have defended himself. if he thought the royal commission was humiliating wait till he appears in federal court
he will have thousands of enemies jeering at him we will be front and center with our best insults
“contained false and misleading representations as to the rights and protections available to clients;
created a significant imbalance in Dover’s and its authorised representatives’ rights and obligations compared with those of clients; and
sought to protect the interests of Dover and its authorised representatives by avoiding liability to clients for poor financial advice.”
the allegations made by ASIC are very serious please read it. the test is not whether clients have lost money or not but whether they would suffer a detriment in the event of – as a result of the client protection policy – the answer is obvious
the federal court might agree, remember justice hayne the former judge of the high court of Australia thought so, someone of his stature does not willy nilly offer opinions without basis
Point. But why, and how, could they asic have known about this document for so long and not done anything about it? It doesn’t make sense to me! On one hand it’s so bad that asic cancel an afsl (despite claiming not to when this was an unpopular statement) but on the other it is not bad enough to action it timely and ethically. Unsure how these hooligans are regulating an industry.
Point..
ASIC 1
Terry -$10,000,000
less cash and receivables on hand + $6,00,000
still [b]- $4,000,000[/b] for da terry
“….the test is not whether clients have lost money or not but whether they would suffer a detriment in the event of – as a result of the client protection policy – the answer is obvious”
What about the fact ASIC were sitting on the CPP for two years but raised no concerns? When they first identified a problem with the CPP, a simple phone call would have rectified the matter. No, they sat on it for two years until the RC came along and then pulled the trigger. The clauses in the CPP were never meant to cause anyone harm, the clauses were there to ensure advisers followed procedure by submitting their SOAs for checking before sending to clients. Sorry, the fact that no one lost money is very relevant, particularly when you consider the millions lost by clients of bank AFSLs. Where are all the clients of Dover who are being reimbursed because they suffered financial loss from poor advice? I haven’t been able to find any……
Why are the penalties imposed by ASIC applied so inconsistently? I’m yet to see a bank have their AFSL revoked. Why would this be? Please enlighten me……
The tide of opinion is turning against ASIC.
the tide of opinion is turning against mcfly, mcbean, mcjohnnyenglish, mcbakshi (from the movie the party which is hilarious)
how about mcbanal, he copied salim mahajer’s trick
The matter will settle amicably, with Tim writing to Terry the way he wrote to the CBA, probably something like”
“Dear Terry
Could you please consider and let us know whether this is sufficient for Dover to resolve the matter, including by way of payment of the community benefit payment, in absence of infringement notices.
As we did for the CBA, we will then reduce the amount to 3.75% of the original penalty, and ring you when we want you to write our press release for us.
It was great to catch up over lunch. My shout next time.
Yours forever
Tim Mullaly”
OMG they are gonna rip him to shreds and torture him through a long expensive legal battle. he can’t even give up now, and has to defend himself which is going to cost millions and millions
Ding! that’s my popcorn! Can’t wait to watch!
that’s just cruel (but so funny), to see a know it all get ripped apart
you should be happier knowing he is also a lawyer YAY!! let’s rip him apart and shred him to bits
ha ! good one i can’t wait + 2
My long-short investment portfolio:
LONG ASIC, SHORT McMaster
LONG FASEA, SHORT FP industry
brilliant. i love it! now we are talking
There are fundamental laws associated with running an AFSL. Dover was in breach, and had their license cancelled. End of story.
I thought asic stated that Dover closed it’s doors voluntarily… I smell a RAT ! WHY are people not raising eyebrows over this new asic statement (confession?) that they shut down Dover…when they so publicly stated that they did not about two months ago……..
I also wonder why they have only said that they shut down dover in light of a sparse string of articles exposing ASICs hand in the close down of Dover. Takes half a brain to start thinking about what is actually going on here folks.
What about the banks? In 18 months NAB had 130 breaches, Dover only had three….. Guess who gets shut down? Where are all the Dover clients who lost money?
and, what about the Dover advisers, they go scot-free? they were the one’s using this document
not fair, for only terry to be blamed. either terry and dover and all dover advisers should be blamed or not at all
it is wrong to single out terry and dover only, asic needs to pursue the dover advisers past and present also who used this document
You must be joking!? The advisers MUST use the documentation provided by their licensee. Poor Terry? This is a guy who is supposed to be a lawyer, writing policy in flagrant disregard of the prevailing laws! Single out Terry? He was the only Responsible Manager, the only Director and the person soley responsible for ALL policy made by Dover. You clearly do not understand the current licensing regime, so instead of embarrassing yourself, stay out of it.
actually i am joking.
it is meant to be a retort to those who have been defending his actions on this forum without understanding the requirements of the law.
let’s see how long they defend him once they get dragged into a protracted legal battle that costs millions
any volunteers ?
Can someone start a betting competition. What are the odds? $1.00 to $1.50, in favour of ASIC?
ASiCs failures are too numerous to mention. What they have done to Dover is disgraceful !
don’t worry Dover has a very strong balance sheet with $6m so he can defend himself well. it’ll probably cost that much though
I have been following this saga and am getting increasingly confused. ASIC first said that Dover decided to close. Now they are saying that their enforecement action led to Dover’s AFSL being cancelled. Seems like they did not want to put their name on it when the advisers were at their angriest, but now they want to claim the credit. doesn’t really reassure anyone that they are acting in the public interest – especially now that Dover has closed anyway.
Terry should have done what the Banks do. Offer ASIC compliance staff on good but public servant wages a job on $250K a year. Simple. It has worked well for the Banks. I think last year the banks paid $0 in fines and lost 0 days due to compliance breaches.
Just like ASIC to go after the BIG fish…tell me again when they will be starting the civil proceedings against CBA, Westpac, NAB, ANZ, AMP that have actually cost consumers money?
So a theoretical problem that may have affected clients was worth destroying an AFSL, 400+ planners businesses and the livlihoods of thousands and tens of thousands of clients left in the lurch in a pivotal 30 June period? ASIC is clearly staffed by unethical failed lobotomy volunteers.
theoretical problem that is going to be tested in court which will cost terry millions in legal fees and he won’t win
ASIC have done more damage to those same clients through its actions and approach to this debacle than Dover or its protection policy issue ever could have. This is an example of killing to ‘cure’ an issue.
Wake up Australia, this mob are running amok and no one is standing up to them.
I sincerely hope it gets thrown out of court and Terry seeks remediation and damages. Perhaps then the blinded pollies might realise this regulator has gone insane.
who can challenge ASIC unless you are a big insto, no one has that much money. duck and cover more like it and just get out all together and hope for the best
adios mustachios farewell
Me too, good 30 years of experience and its time to hang up the boots. too difficult now to keep up with compliance, bye.
Hi Terry. You should be worried.
you should see mina in person. totally retarded guy. same with the bdm peter thompson, he is twice the retard of mina
Just another case of ASIC shutting the door after the horse has bolted. This reeks of ASIC wanting to be seen to be taking action after getting pummelled at the Royal Commission, yet I wonder to what benefit, given Dover has already shut up shop & McMaster is unlikely to re-open another AFSL. Can ASIC point to any loss experienced by clients as a result of the Dover “Protection Policy” ?? My (albeit limited) understanding of the Dover “Protection” Policy was that it was directed at advisers, and was the stick to keep them in line, saying that Dover & their PI cover wouldn’t stand behind the adviser, if they went off reservation.
was McMaster banned from financial advice? the article says he was, “removed from the financial services industry” , his website is only under maintenance so he might be thinking about a comeback
he can still practice as a lawyer though unless the Victorian bar strike him off as a solicitor for not being of good fame
Yes he had to make an undertaking that he would have no association in any capacity with the financial services industry, this included being a manager or business adviser to an AFS or ACL you can read that In the EU
The website is up to accept payments which I assume he will need to pay for all his legal fees.
As for his solicitor days ending that is inevitable. Down with Dover, Down with Dover
i am writing to the Victorian bar to request him to be struck off as a solicitor as he is not of good fame and character