The class action from William Roberts Lawyers and IMF Bentham is against the MLC Super Fund trustee company, NULIS Nominees (Australia), according to a statement.
The action relates to excess fees charged to members of the fund from 1 July 2016 onwards. It will allege NULIS breached its obligations to the members of the MLC Super Fund, when it agreed to levy and levied excess fees from member’s accounts in order to pay commissions and other fees to advisers.
As a result, William Roberts will allege that this constituted a breach of NULIS’ duty to act in the best interests of the members of the MLC Super Fund.
It is not proposed that any financial advisers be sued in the class action, William Roberts said.
The move follows a similar class action William Roberts pursued earlier this month against Suncorp Super.
Other class actions launched in recent months include one against AMP from Slater and Gordon in relation to its super fees and one from Maurice Blackburn, also against AMP, relating to a similar matter.
However, Maurice Blackburn’s claim only goes back as far as 30 May 2013, while Slater and Gordon is seeking compensation for losses as far back as 2008.
Best Interests of Client. that is such a catch-all. Best interest would seem to be no fees and 30%pa return guaranteed and free advice too. Retrospectively applying today’s interpretation of laws is a terrible thing yet Slater & Gordon, seem to be doing that by going back to 2008. We can only act based on today’s views and information . In 3yrs time, views will have changed again many times… will more lawsuits happen based upon this? I hope not. I would say most advisers do the right thing. maybe <5% are questionable. If we looked at any industry, you would be looking at similar figures. That would suggest that ethics are not the issue. Fees, per se, are not really the issue. it is the use of fees to fund anything that is not a) related to advice b) service that superannuation clients object to. Tennis boxes or conference sponsorship, soft-dollar entertainment and "schmoozing" if paid from client funds (not directly from product fees disclosed as Admin etc) are not on. For industry funds where "they are there to benefit members", I would suggest that all fees should be broken down in the annual report and anything along lines of entertainment etc should be returned to members. Sponsorship costs also returned. They do not benefit all members. Lets hope some of the law firms manage to do this.
Still don’t understand just why it’s acceptable for the Hesta trustee to have a marketing expenses consisting of corporate boxes at the Tennis, where they take large employers or will pay commissions to Unions in order to get access to the shop floor.
listen , haven’t you all read sections 101.45 of the corporations act and the PDS page 78.4 ?? Neither have i !!! i cant understand it ,written by lawyers to cover their arse , not ours or the clients !! Cheers this is the industry ew have set up , a dogs breakfast .
Legal firms like those mentioned above and Hall & Wilcox are just parasites and ambulance chasers.
They’re doing this because of the gravy train advisers now find themselves creating with the ever-shifting, complex, unnecessary and unfair regulatory environment we’re now operating in.
[b]Gospel truth[/b][b][/b]: I met a group of lawyers from H&W Sydney several weeks back in a prestigious Melbourne restaurant who said they down here working on a big case. They’d approached the small gathering of advisers and BDM’s I was still with because they said they were impressed with how we’d behaved that afternoon and how we all presented ourselves so professionally.
When I responded to the lady lawyer’s question, “What do you guys all do?” by saying we were in the financial services industry as advisers and insurance company BDM’s, the smugness and disdain she then showed me was nothing short of repulsive.
She stepped back, looked at me and smugly said, “You guys better watch yourselves, we’re coming after you.”
Stunned I defensively said “What are you talking about??” She said, “You need to know your clients better and all your compliance requirements under the Corporations Act.”
While this is technically correct, it was the sense I got that lawyers know how rattled we’ve become trying to keep up with all ridiculous regulations ASIC and the government keep making up.
I turned my back on ‘lady lawyer’s’ arrogance for a few moments and told my peers about her comments but then went back and told her quite forcibly….
‘Listen here, you need to understand something! Advisers are doing their damndest to keep up with an ever-changing environment and a regulator that’s making changes on the fly. Our incomes are shrinking and our education requirements are just absurd. But most of all, I want you to remember this — advisers are human beings too!”
In my humble opinion, compliance has become so outrageous and onerous because Licensees know these parasites are out there.
Surely the industry funds must be in the sights as well, they are still paying their advisers like this.
NAB can thank the CSSA (Corporate Super Specialists Alliance) for this one.
and the real winner here after all the fees and charges by the law firm………surprise surprise, the lawyers!