Property spruiker restrained from marketing ‘no money down’ investment opportunity

property finance

1 April 2016
| By Nicholas |
image
image
expand image

A property developer has been ordered to refrain from promoting a "no money down" investment proposal, after the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) flagged concerns.

The regulator had sought orders restraining Macro Realty Developments Pty Ltd from promoting the investment opportunity to investors, claiming that the company had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, including misrepresentations, in contravention of s 1041H of the Act and s 12DA of the ASIC Act.

The firm, alongside Property Tuition Pty Ltd, and Education Holdings Pty Ltd — who were together known as 21st Century prior to liquidators being appointed to both businesses in October 2015 — offered investors the chance to invest in property, with Macro agreeing to pay the investor between $100 and $400 per week, depending on whether the investor was able to obtain institutional finance and the number of properties owned by the company.

"The Investment Proposal required an investor to become a director of a company in respect of which Macro: (a) was the sole decision maker for all activities of the company; (b) retained control of the company; and (c) remained the sole decision maker for all business associated with the company in circumstances where the investor agreed to do all things that Macro required to run the business of the company ‘as [Macro saw] fit'," the Federal Court of Australia documents reported.

"The implied representation that the investment is essentially risk free is false or misleading and likely to lead investors into error.

"The investment risk includes a risk that Macro may not be in a position to ‘buy back' the properties from all investors at the price for which the properties were transacted some three years earlier."

The court ordered that Macro be restrained whether by itself, its officers, servants, agents, or otherwise howsoever from:

  1. promoting and marketing the Investment Proposal;
  2. entering into any arrangement or agreement in relation to the Investment Proposal;
  3. doing any act in furtherance of or in connection with the Investment Proposal; and
  4. receiving, soliciting or disposing of any funds in connection with the Investment Proposal.

The First Defendant pay the Plaintiff's costs of this proceeding including all reserved costs.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

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

3 weeks 5 days ago

This verdict highlights something deeply wrong and rotten at the heart of the FSCP. We are witnessing a heavy-handed, op...

1 month ago

Interesting. Would be good to know the details of the StrategyOne deal....

1 month ago

Insignia Financial has confirmed it is considering a preliminary non-binding proposal received from a US private equity giant to acquire the firm. ...

1 week 4 days ago

Six of the seven listed financial advice licensees have reported positive share price growth in 2024, with AMP and Insignia successfully reversing earlier losses. ...

6 days 20 hours ago

Specialist wealth platform provider Mason Stevens has become the latest target of an acquisition as it enters a binding agreement with a leading Sydney-based private equi...

6 days ago