Mayfair 101 appeal against $30m penalty dismissed

mayfair 101 ASIC court penalty james mawhinney

11 October 2022
| By Laura Dew |
image
image
expand image

The Full Federal Court has dismissed an appeal by Mayfair 101 Group to overturn the findings of misleading or deceptive advertising and a $30 million penalty.

The restrictions were imposed on Mayfair 101 after action by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) in March 2021 regarding the promotion of M+ and M Core Fixed Income Notes by Australian Income Solutions (previously Mayfair Wealth Partners), M101 Holdings, M101 Nominees and Online Investments (trading as Mayfair 101).

A penalty of $30 million was imposed in December 2021.

The court set aside an injunction against the companies restraining them from using certain specified phrases in their advertising, marketing or promotion on the basis that the injunction was “too broad and unworkable”.

ASIC deputy chair, Sarah Court, said: “ASIC pursued this case through the Federal Court because of the importance of accurate advertising of financial products. We were concerned that the advertising by the Mayfair 101 Group represented that their products were of a similar risk profile to bank term deposits, when that was not the case.

“The decision to uphold the original findings of the Federal Court, and ASIC’s case that the Mayfair 101 Group’s advertising was misleading or deceptive, is a message to industry that financial products need to be accurately advertised or companies may risk substantial penalties.”

The appeal was otherwise dismissed and the Full Court ordered the Mayfair companies to pay ASIC’s costs of the appeal.

 

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Submitted by Researcher on Wed, 2022-10-12 10:08

Its great to see ASIC take action based on the importance of accurate advertising. I doubt they will receive a cent of the fine, but no harm the adviser levy can cover ASIC's costs. So based on this action when will they commence proceedings against the union funds for the decades of misleading claims about their returns, asset allocations, use of inaccurate valuations on unlisted assets to manipulate returns? Or is accurate advertising only important to selective parties not inclusive of their union fund mates?

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 4 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 3 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. ...

5 days 17 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...

4 days 21 hours ago