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?

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
 

Recommended for you

 

MARKET INSIGHTS

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

Chris Cornish

By having trustees supervise client directed payments from their pension funds, Stephen Jones and the federal Labor gove...

10 hours 33 minutes ago
Chris Cornish

Now we now the size of Stephen Jones' CSOLR tax, I doubt anyone will be employer any new financial adviser from this poi...

10 hours 38 minutes ago
JOHN GILLIES

Amazing ! Between the beginning of licencing Feb 2002 and 2008 this was a very good stable industry.Then the do-gooders...

1 day 5 hours ago

AustralianSuper and Australian Retirement Trust have posted the financial results for the 2022–23 financial year for their combined 5.3 million members....

10 months 1 week ago

A $34 billion fund has come out on top with a 13.3 per cent return in the last 12 months, beating out mega funds like Australian Retirement Trust and Aware Super. ...

10 months ago

The verdict in the class action case against AMP Financial Planning has been delivered in the Federal Court by Justice Moshinsky....

10 months 1 week ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND