ASIC's Storm case to continue
The Storm Financial compensation case brought by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) on behalf of two investors is set to continue, after the Federal Court rejected challenges from the companies involved in the collapse.
In December 2010, ASIC commenced legal proceedings on behalf of Barry and Deanna Doyle against Bank of Queensland, Senrac and Macquarie Bank.
The case was in relation to the alleged breach of contract, contravention of statutory prohibitions against unconscionable conduct, and the banks' liability as linked credit providers of Storm under the Trade Practices Act 1974.
Earlier this year, all three companies asked the court to strike out and dismiss the whole or part of ASIC's statement of claim, which was rejected by Justice Lindsay Foster.
The court has, however, asked ASIC to clarify certain aspects of the claims by filing an amended statement of claim.
These proceedings are separate from other Storm-linked legal cases brought by ASIC, including the civil penalty proceedings against former Storm chief and his wife, Emmanuel and Julie Cassimatis.
Recommended for you
Licensing regulation should prioritise consumer outcomes over institutional convenience, according to Assured Support, and the compliance firm has suggested an alternative framework to the “licensed and self-licensed” model.
The chair of the Platinum Capital listed investment company admits the vehicle “is at a crossroads” in its 31-year history, with both L1 Capital and Wilson Asset Management bidding to take over its investment management.
AMP has settled on two court proceedings: one class action which affected superannuation members and a second regarding insurer policies.
With a large group of advisers expecting to exit before the 2026 education deadline, an industry expert shares how these practices can best prepare themselves for sale to compete in a “buyer’s market”.
