Mariner take neutral role in ASIC action against former directors
Mariner Corporation has stated it would not take an active part in proceedings brought by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) against three former directors of the group but did not consent to Court orders sought by ASIC or admit to any allegations made.
In April ASIC stated it would seek financial penalties and disqualification orders against Matthew Fletcher, Donald Christie and Darren Olney-Fraser over Mariner's unsuccessful proposed takeover bid for listed financial services company Austock Group Limited.
At that time Olney-Fraser was Mariner chief executive and managing director while Christie was a director and board chair while Fletcher was a former director.
Mariner stated it had taken a neutral position in the matter after reaching an agreement with ASIC that there was "no commercial justification for its continued involvement in the proceedings" which are to be heard in the Federal Court.
In a statement released to the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), Mariner also stated that no substantive relief was being sought by ASIC against the company and the alleged conduct which is at the center of the ASIC proceedings related to directors who have since left the company. On August 14 this year Olney-Fraser tendered an immediate resignation according to an ASX announcement with Christie standing down from his roles on 25 August.
In the most recent announcement Mariner stated the three former directors "are each defending the allegations vigorously through representation independent of the company" and the matters raised by ASIC would "be decided by the Court after hearing all the evidence and submissions, including those on behalf of the defendants who were directors of Mariner at the relevant time ie mid 2012".
In its original statement ASIC alleged that Mariner's mid 2012 takeover bid for Austock was misleading since the "proposed bid was at a price less than Mariner was permitted to offer and because it misled the market as to Mariner's ability to fund the bid".
ASIC also alleged that Mariner was reckless "as to whether it could perform its obligations under the proposed bid", claiming it did not have the required financial resources to fund the bid nor did it have commitments from other parties that they would do so for Mariner at the time of the announcement.
AUTHOR
Jason Spits
Recommended for you
The month of April enjoyed four back-to-back weeks of growth in financial adviser numbers, with this past week seeing a net rise of five.
ASIC has permanently banned a former Perth adviser after he made “materially misleading” statements to induce investors.
The Financial Services and Credit Panel has made a written order to a relevant provider after it gave advice regarding non-concessional contributions.
With the election taking place on Saturday (3 May), Adviser Ratings examines how the two major parties could shape the advice industry in the future.
