Mayfair 101’s Mawhinney sues ASIC for defamation
Mayfair 101 head, James Mawhinney, is suing the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and deputy chair Sarah Court for defamation.
This followed publication of a media release stating Mawhinney had caused 500 investors to lose $211 million.
He is alleging Court provided quotes to the release stating:
- He knowingly misled the public by marketing high-risk products as low risk, and thereby caused 500 investors in the Mayfair 101 group to lose approximately $211 million;
- By reason of his serious misconduct in advertising investments, receiving or soliciting funds and misleading marketing, he caused 500 investors in the Mayfair 101 group to lose approximately $211 million; and
- By reason of his serious misconduct in advertising investments, receiving or soliciting funds and misleading marketing, he caused so much harm to investors in Mayfair 101, that, unless restrained by injunctions of the court while proceedings continue, he would cause further harm to investors.
He was also seeking claims for damages and aggravated damages arising from his reputation being “seriously injured” as well as for “distress and embarrassment” caused by the release.
The proceedings were filed in the Federal Court of Western Australia where Mawhinney resided.
Last month, Mawhinney successfully overturned a 20-year ban on him from advertising investments and raising funds from the public through financial products.
AUTHOR
Laura Dew
Recommended for you
ASIC has cancelled the AFSL of a Perth financial services firm following payments to its clients by the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort after a failed managed investment scheme.
Bravura chief executive Andrew Russell has announced he will be stepping down from the company, just under two years after his appointment.
Financial advice businesses with a younger, wealthier client base are enjoying higher valuations and increased attention from potential buyers than those with older clients.
A financial advice firm has been penalised $11 million in the Federal Court for providing ‘cookie cutter advice’ to its clients and breaching conflicted remuneration rules.
