Troubled Mayfair 101 to return within months

Troubled financial services firm Mayfair 101 is expecting to relaunch later this year after years of regulatory challenges against the firm and its founder James Mawhinney.

It is described as having “solid assets, committed team and bright future”.

A statement from the firm said: “Mayfair 101 is preparing for the relaunch of its international private equity investment group in 2023.

"We have a clear plan to make up for the challenges faced in recent years and look forward to continuing to play an important role in the development of the alternative investment industry”. 

The Mayfair 101 Group, which was founded in 2009, offered investments in multiple financial products including the M+ and M Core Notes, the IPO Wealth Fund, Australian Property Bonds and IPO Capital. The companies that offered the M Core Notes and the IPO Wealth Fund are in liquidation, and redemptions in the remaining products have been suspended since March 2020.

VIEW ALL

View all

It raised money from consumers through investment products to acquire real estate and invest in private equity ventures, including a Queensland resort Dunk Island.

In December 2021, the Federal Court ordered Mayfair Wealth Partners to pay a $10 million penalty, Online Investments Pty Ltd to pay $4 million and M101 Nominees Pty Ltd and M101 Holdings Pty Ltd to each pay $8 million for making false and misleading representations to investors in the M+ Fixed Income Notes and M Core Fixed Income Notes. 

This penalty was appealed but was dismissed by the Federal Court in October 2022. 

Following this, Mawhinney announced he was suing ASIC and deputy chair, Sarah Court, for defamation following a media release that Mawhinney had caused 500 investors to lose $211 million.

The decision to relaunch comes after Mawhinney had his 20-year ban, restraining him from advertising investments and raising funds from the public through financial products overturned. This had been brought in April 2021 but was overturned in September 2022 after an appeal by Mawhinney.

“The Full Court allowed the appeal on the ground that Mawhinney was denied procedural fairness because ASIC had not sought certain findings of contraventions, but the primary judge made and relied on those findings in making the restraining order.”