'Ponzi scheme’ investors to pay portion of Wealthsure’s appeal costs

professional-indemnity-insurance/federal-court/investment-management/financial-advisers/

4 July 2014
| By Nicholas |
image
image
expand image

Investors who were encouraged to invest in what a Federal Court judge called “a Ponzi scheme” will have to pay 30 per cent of the costs of their financial adviser’s appeal against an initial ruling. 

Wealthsure Pty Ltd was initially ordered to pay the full costs of a claim by a South Australian couple, who lost “a considerable amount of money” after being advised by a Wealthsure adviser to invest in financial products issued by Neovest - which has since gone into liquidation - even though other parties had also had a significant role in causing the same harm. 

However, Wealthsure’s appeal to the Federal Court of Australia ruled that the couple’s claim should be apportioned, with the couple ordered to pay 30 per cent of Wealthsure’s appeal. 

Lawyers, Halsey Legal Services, claimed the ruling had “very important implications” for financial advisers with professional indemnity insurance and their insurers. 

“The consequence of this judgment is that liability between defendants under the Corporations Act 2001 will be apportioned based on the relative degree of responsibility, even if only one cause of action for the same loss or damage is apportionable,” a spokesperson for Halsey Legal Services said. 

“It can be argued that the court has sought to implement the legislative intention behind proportionate liability.  When the proportionate liability regimes were introduced, it was said that part of the rationale for the introduction was to prevent so-called 'deep pocket syndrome’ - i.e. circumstances in which the plaintiff lawyers targeted the more substantial defendants, or the defendants that had substantial professional indemnity insurance. 

“Professionals with professional indemnity insurance, and their insurers, can have greater certainty about more realistically scoping the potential extent of their liability in court cases involving misleading and deceptive conduct, or breaches of the duty of care (apportionable matters).” 

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

So we are now underwriting criminal scams?...

2 months ago

Glad to see the back of you Steve. You made financial more expensive, not more affordable as you claim, and presided ...

2 months ago

Completely agree Peter. The definition of 'significant change is circumstances relevant to the scope of the advice' is s...

4 months ago

A Sydney financial adviser has been permanently banned from providing any financial services, with the regulator deriding his “lack of integrity, trustworthiness and prof...

3 weeks ago

Minister for Financial Services, Stephen Jones, has provided further information about the second tranche of the Delivering Better Financial Outcomes (DBFO) reforms....

1 week 6 days ago

One licensee has lost 27 advisers in the past week, now sitting at zero, according to the latest Wealth Data figures....

3 weeks ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS