Fed Court upholds ASIC right on possible ban
The Federal Court has dismissed an application made by a former AMP financial planner to restrain the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) from making a decision on a possible financial services order against him.
In November 2015, ASIC expressed concerns related to advice given by Rommel Panganiban, a representative of AMP Financial Planning at that time, to around 50 of his clients.
Following the hearing, conducted by ASIC in March 2016, Panganiban requested the commission to provide him with further documents, including the client files to whom he had provided advice.
As ASIC declined to reveal these documents, on the basis of relevance and confidentiality obligations, Panganiban filed an application in the Federal Court seeking orders that ASIC provide him with the requested material and that ASIC be restrained from making a decision.
According to his application, he claimed that by failing to provide him with the client files, ASIC had denied him procedural fairness.
However, the Federal Court dismissed the application on the grounds that ASIC had not denied him natural justice by not providing him with the requested material and it is for ASIC to determine the matters and material on which it proposes to rely in making a banning decision, and which information should be disclosed to the banning candidate.
Additionally, Panganiban, a current authorised representative of Lionsgate Financial Group, was ordered to pay ASIC's costs.
A decision regarding ASIC's concerns and whether a banning order is appropriate is yet to be made by the ASIC delegate.
AUTHOR
Oksana Patron
Recommended for you
ASIC has released the results of its first adviser exam to be held in 2025, with 241 candidates attempting the test.
Quarterly Wealth Data analysis has uncovered positive improvements in financial adviser numbers compared with losses in the prior corresponding period.
Holding portfolios that are too complex or personalised can be a detractor for acquirers of financial advice firms as they require too much effort to maintain post-acquisition.
As the financial advice profession continues to wait on further DBFO legislation, industry commentators have encouraged advisers to act now in driving practice efficiency.
