In a statement, AMP announced it has lodged its defence to a shareholder class action led by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, which argues the company “should have disclosed to the market information about the issues highlighted during AMP’s appearance at the royal commission hearings in April 2018”.
“AMP confirms it will vigorously defend this and all similar proceedings,” AMP said.
“AMP denies the plaintiff’s allegations that it had information that was required to be disclosed to the market during the relevant period (May 2012 to April 2018) regarding the practice of charging advice fees for no service related to the 90-day exception and ringfencing, and AMP’s interactions with ASIC (including in respect of the Clayton Utz report).”
The company said none of the information it had regarding any of the issues brought up by the royal commission were material to AMP’s shareprice, noting the fees for no service affected less than 4,000 customers and accounted for only $600,000, its misleading statements to ASIC didn’t mislead the regulator in any material way regarding fees for no service, and that ASIC was aware of the relationship between AMP and Clayton Utz.
“Further, Clayton Utz did not make any changes to the report as a result of communications with AMP which Clayton Utz did not agree with, and Clayton Utz carefully verified the accuracy of the statements in the report,” the company said.
Will the FPA be investigating AMPFP? After all they’re a member, their payments are bundled up as members fees on their balance sheet and reported as members fees. Seems like planners are happy with these relationships. I’m not. The same corporate governance culture that has been driving AMP is driving the direction of Financial Advice in Australia and this relationship must surely stop. Why not make Sam H head of the FPA whilst we’re at it.
I don’t actually subscribe to this conspiracy theory that bulk payments/discounts of FPA member fees by institutions is effectively handing them control. But with all the other credibility issues the FPA is struggling with, surely it’s time to just stop this practice and remove the doubts and suspicions. Every FPA member should pay individually with no discounts based on licensee. And get rid of this “Professional Practice” and “Professional Partner” nonsense.
I agree, FPA take notice, why the discounts — in fact with the poor AMP situation, you should kick them out
Firstly, does the Australian Medical Association get payments from Pfizer? No. It’s seen as a conflict. Secondly isn’t it about time advisers drive the direction of advice rather than product manufacturers?
This is the Submission back to the Royal Commission:
The issues raised by the case study with respect to AMP concerned
matters that are almost entirely the subject of an ongoing ASIC
investigation.
That investigation commenced in 2015 and has involved
compulsory examination of numerous AMP current and former employees
and the production of hundreds of thousands of documents to ASIC. As
AMP understands it, ASIC was nearing completion of that investigation at
the time the Royal Commission hearings commenced. Given the
seriousness of the matters being investigated, AMP fully expects that
ASIC will deal with them in an appropriate manner consistent with ASIC’s
enforcement priorities, and under a proper process, with affected parties
having had an opportunity to be heard.
[b]6. The Terms of Reference for the Royal Commission state that the
Commissioner is not required to inquire into a particular matter to the
extent that he is satisfied that the matter has been, is being, or will be,
sufficiently and appropriately dealt with by another inquiry or investigation
or a criminal or civil proceeding.[/b]
[b]7. There is no reason for the Commissioner to believe that ASIC will not deal
with the matter appropriately.[/b]
Anonymus you are quite on the ball Who wins – lawyers Who loses – our clients
anona[quote=Anonymous]Commonwealth Bank and ANZ have paid out Millions and Millions for fees for no service yet all i see every week is AMP AMP AMP classic media grubs….
I wonder who the Royal Commission Mates got rich on shorts on AMP’s Share price going down??? Kinda funny they brought up and ongoing investigation when the terms of reference of the RC clearly state they cannot talk about cases which are ongoing and the AMP investigation is still going. Surely these highly educated lawyers at the top of their game would know this… makes you wonder what the real play was for, smoke and mirrors.
Maybe AMP should sue the lawyers for breaching the terms of reference of the Royal Commission and for the loss in share price. Certainly looks like a breach of duty to me.[/quote]
CBA and ANZ are banks first and foremost. Wealth Management income is only a small part of their overall revenue.
AMP’s problem is that it allegedly lied to ASIC on core matters relating to it’s license and primary source of income.
No conspiracy. Just common sense.
Guggenheimer might have a bit to answer for.
who are they kidding more money for the lawyers but who would be stupid enough to take on the case
AMP has lost it’s most valuable asset which is it’s reputation. The only people who will write business with AMP are tied agents with development loans There are plenty of alternatives easier to deal with. Calls to AMP take around half an hour to get answered I am ex Dover and I hold accreditation with AMP which I have had for 40 years. Originally National Mutual which was good, I was the only one not to accept a loan . The AMP BDM was the only one not to reply to my request to transfer clients from Dover to Rimbal Investment Services, my new ADSL, a non profit co operative for ex Dover. 50 ex Dover have signed up into Rimbal. There is a lot more to this story. Steve Klein 0421 195 306
Commonwealth Bank and ANZ have paid out Millions and Millions for fees for no service yet all i see every week is AMP AMP AMP classic media grubs….
I wonder who the Royal Commission Mates got rich on shorts on AMP’s Share price going down??? Kinda funny they brought up and ongoing investigation when the terms of reference of the RC clearly state they cannot talk about cases which are ongoing and the AMP investigation is still going. Surely these highly educated lawyers at the top of their game would know this… makes you wonder what the real play was for, smoke and mirrors.
Maybe AMP should sue the lawyers for breaching the terms of reference of the Royal Commission and for the loss in share price. Certainly looks like a breach of duty to me.
Ive been short AMP since it was announced they would feature in the RC. Its the easiest money I have ever made.
Anyone who knows the industry knew this was coming, with more to still be unearthed. Its a business full of (mostly) dinosaurs. BOLR has always been a massive liability and designed to incentivise in house product flogging.
I’ve been short on AMP since 1999.