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.
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?