Mariner Bridge alters name-change course
Mariner Bridge Investments has dropped plans to change its name to Bridge Investments Group after a legal challenge by financial planning firm Bridges Financial Services.
Mariner was to have held an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) tomorrow for shareholders to approve the name, but in a notice to shareholders last night it cancelled the meeting.
Bridges had obtained an injunction stopping the name change, and in Mariner’s EGM notice the company said: “It is not considered in the company’s best interests to proceed with a name change that may result in significant legal costs and expenditure of management time; accordingly, we have cancelled the proposed EGM.”
Bridges chief executive officer Alex Hutchison said the name change would have caused confusion in the financial services industry.
“Bridges was concerned with the proposed name as it infringed upon our brand — a name which has been in existence for more than 20 years,” he told Money Management.
“We are very happy with the result.”
Mariner said in its notice to shareholders last month that the name change was to reflect the company’s operations in investment management.
“The (Mariner) directors believe that the ‘Bridge Investments Group Limited’ name reflects a natural evolution of the company’s branding as it expands its business,” the notice said.
“The directors also believe that a change in corporate name will reduce any confusion that may exist between the company and its largest shareholder, Mariner Financial Limited.”
Mariner had also applied to the ASX to change its ticker code to BRG with the change of company name.
With the proposed name change scrapped, Mariner has told shareholders that it will select a different name, which will be put to shareholders at the company’s annual general meeting in November.
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.
