Colonial and CBA conflicted remuneration case dismissed
Action against Colonial First State and Commonwealth Bank alleging breaches of conflicted remuneration laws have been dismissed by the Federal Court.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) had alleged breaches of conflicted remuneration laws but the Federal Court found Colonial did not breach the law when it agreed to pay CBA to distribute Essential Super.
CBA staff signed up over 390,000 individuals to the Essential Super product between July 2013 and June 2019.
Justice Anderson found the payments made by Colonial to CBA did not constitute benefits within the definition of ‘conflicted remuneration’ and that the statutory context of the definition focused on situations such as where a financial adviser had a financial incentive.
The case had been used as a case study during the Hayne Royal Commission.
ASIC deputy chair, Sarah Court, said: “ASIC pursued this case because we were concerned that the arrangements between Colonial and CBA had the potential to influence the choice of financial product recommended to retail clients or the advice given to retail clients. ASIC will carefully consider the judgment.”
AUTHOR
Laura Dew
Recommended for you
Government has introduced a bill to Parliament to legislate the first stream of the QAR reforms.
ASIC now has a 1:1 ratio when it comes to court success in the enforcement of crypto activities and more action is expected as Treasury seeks to introduce a regulatory framework.
A leading governance body has hit out at “specialist interest groups proposing ad hoc law reform” when it comes to reforms of financial services legislation and believes an independent body is needed.
The release of ALRC’s final report into financial services legislation has highlighted financial advice as a “significant” focus as it seeks to reduce costs and help advisers understand their obligations, alongside the Quality of Advice Review.
Add new comment