Planners unlikely to face legal action over FOFA amendment-related advice

ASIC financial planning FOFA financial planners financial advice australian securities and investments commission federal government

28 February 2014
| By Staff |
image
image
expand image

Financial planners are unlikely to face legal action on advice covered by the proposed Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) amendments, with courts recognising the transitionary and uncertain nature of the circumstances in which the advice was given, according to Baker & McKenzie financial services partner Astrid Raetze.

Raetze said that while all seven safe harbour steps regarding the best interests duty rules in FOFA were currently enforced, any action against an adviser in the future for not following the seventh would be an ‘uphill battle'.

"If a consumer made a claim in the future against an adviser stating that advice provided in early 2014 was not covered by the catch-all feature, knowing that it was to be repealed, that action would be an uphill battle," Raetze said.

"If the argument was that an adviser failed to meet the seventh criteria but had met the preceding six and the client needed recompense, the courts would likely recognise the uncertainty surrounding that provision and the likelihood it was to be repealed."

Raetze said it would be highly unlikely that any cases would be brought relating to Fee Disclosure Statements, with planners having either complied under the law or set to do so during the transition period for FOFA.

"I would be surprised if any action was run on these matters towards planners or even towards ASIC for not enforcing these parts of the FOFA laws."

Raetze's comments echo those of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) in its statement of 20 December 2013 and at the recent public hearings of the Senate inquiry into the performance of ASIC.

In both instances ASIC stated it would take a facilitative approach to the transition into the FOFA regime, including those areas that may be amended by the Federal Government.

This position has been criticised by a member of the Senate inquiry, Senator Sam Dastyari, who stated that ASIC should make a distinction between law that has been passed by the Federal Parliament and any proposals to change that law.

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...

1 month 2 weeks ago

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

1 month 3 weeks ago

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

1 month 4 weeks ago

SuperRatings has shared the median estimated return for balanced superannuation funds for the calendar year 2024, finding the year achieved “strong and consistent positiv...

1 week 5 days ago

Original bidder Bain Capital, which saw its first offer rejected in December, has returned with a revised bid for Insignia Financial....

4 days 23 hours ago

A relevant provider has received a written direction from the Financial Services and Credit Panel after a superannuation rollover resulted in tax bill of over $200,000 fo...

4 weeks 1 day ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS