Colonial and CBA conflicted remuneration case dismissed
Action against Colonial First State and Commonwealth Bank alleging breaches of conflicted remuneration laws have been dismissed by the Federal Court.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) had alleged breaches of conflicted remuneration laws but the Federal Court found Colonial did not breach the law when it agreed to pay CBA to distribute Essential Super.
CBA staff signed up over 390,000 individuals to the Essential Super product between July 2013 and June 2019.
Justice Anderson found the payments made by Colonial to CBA did not constitute benefits within the definition of ‘conflicted remuneration’ and that the statutory context of the definition focused on situations such as where a financial adviser had a financial incentive.
The case had been used as a case study during the Hayne Royal Commission.
ASIC deputy chair, Sarah Court, said: “ASIC pursued this case because we were concerned that the arrangements between Colonial and CBA had the potential to influence the choice of financial product recommended to retail clients or the advice given to retail clients. ASIC will carefully consider the judgment.”
AUTHOR
Laura Dew
Recommended for you
Financial Services Minister Stephen Jones has shared further details on the second tranche of the Delivering Better Financial Outcomes reforms including modernising best interests duty and reforming Statements of Advice.
The Federal Court has found a company director guilty of operating unregistered managed investment schemes and carrying on a financial services business without holding an AFSL.
The Governance Institute has said ASIC’s governance arrangements are no longer “fit for purpose” in a time when financial markets are quickly innovating and cyber crime becomes a threat.
Compliance professionals working in financial services are facing burnout risk as higher workloads, coupled with the ever-changing regulation, place notable strain on staff.
