IOOF wins in APRA court battle

IOOF has scored a victory against the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) in the Federal Court.

The company welcomed the court’s decision and said it was reviewing the judgement before issuing a more formal statement.

APRA had brought proceedings against IOOF’s APRA-regulated entities IOOF Investment Management and Questor Financial Services and five individuals including the managing director, Chris Kelaher and chairman, George Venardos.

The court held that IOOF and the five individuals had not contravened the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act and declined to make orders disqualifying Kelaher, Venardos and the other individuals.




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

Massive win for IOOF. Egg on the face of APRA whose actions forced the resignation of Kelahar without any lawful reason. Makes Michael Hodge look a bit average. Who didn't know the trustee SIS Act obligations Michael? Perhaps the retail super trustees DO know what they are doing. Time to focus on Industry fund governance perhaps?

"Why not litigate?"

Isnt that going really well for ASIC and APRA at the moment. They are not competent enough for "why not litigate" and eventually politicians will wise up to the fact that this is burning tax payer dollars as these organisations aren't up to the task. APRA and ASIC trying to score cheap political victories against Westpac and IOOF has been nothing but a burn of tax dollars, people should be up in arms and they should be given a slap down by the govt.

my god, we all witnessed their actions during the RC! Clearly prioritised IOOF interests over members, ignored massive conflicts, scribbled board minutes on scraps of paper and asked the minute taker to leave the room when they wished to discuss said conflicts.

And that doesn't breech current superannuation trustee laws.....??? Another win for public confidence in our industry.

Mate, you have no idea and what ridiculous comments you have made. You obviously do not know law

the RC only had to present one side of the case … funnily enough when you are allowed a legal defence in a court sometimes the evidence might come down in your favour. And our journalists don't have all the evidence and if they do they don't have to present it for our enlightenment.

APRA have unlimited tax payers funds so will go to appeal. Plenty of self-employed QCs ready and willing to dip into the public purse to help APRA,

I always knew that IOOF would win. APRA, after getting kicked up its behind by the Hayne Royal Commission decide, unethically, to take IOOF to task one day having met with its representatives. Headline news and IOOF's shares plummet with journalists having field day. IOOF always stated its position, now I understand that APRA is required to pay $45 million in costs which is tax payer funded. It is disgusting the contempt APRA has towards institutions doing their best to comply with erroneous laws. Power tends to corrupt and create ethical blindness. Thank you APRA and Hayne for ruining careers and blemishing organisations with your overzealous and over active bolshie mentality. Can we now go back to work knowing that we are helping the economy grow. I suggest ASIC study this case and learn from it

It is a shame that there is no way that the individuals who suffered tremendous mental anguish through this futile exercise, will never recover what they deserve in compensation.

Regulators who don't know the law they are supposed to be regulating. Politicians who frame legislation based on public opinion not on good legal principles. Taxpayer money being wasted on ambit claims by regulators. Hayne, ASIC and APRA now being shown up as the ill-informed bullies they are. Unconscionable behaviour by aforesaid three blind mice. Where to next? Oh yes. The Australian public being more confused than ever. Advisers leaving in their droves. More money being wasted on academic qualifications that will never replace a lifetime of learning on the job. The sorry list goes on and on.

Think majority of industry particularly in advice don’t really understand the laws that governs them .. best interest duty is most misunderstood.

Legally IOOF were always in the right, but where your mistake leads to member losses the right thing to do is to remediate from your own ( IOOF ) pocket, not from member reserves, APRA should not have litigated this, but IOOF should have avoided the litigation by forking out a small amount to fix the problem be
fore it became a problem.

while you all were bickering. I bought IFL personally at 4.98. so, none of you won. you just bickered.

only I won.

don't worry about arguing. worry about winning. this is one of the issues with financial planning. people are endlessly worried about nothing, bickering and losing and not winning.

you have to win to be a winner. win more. think about how to win incessantly. make it your life's mission, goal, need and objective. then once you win, help your clients win. then you win again.

Just Win 

Good for IOOF. Just goes to show what happens when the actual facts come out in open court. It would be nice to see legal action against ASIC and the FSC over the LIF just to see them both having to admit to their corruption.

1) Transparency is a benefit, not a threat, to those whose decisions and actions are moral, fair and reasonable. It doesn't help an organisation or individual's plea of innocence when they are anything less than fully transparent in regards to their processes and decisions, in fact it achieves the complete opposite. 2) One can comply with the letter of the law without complying with the intention of the law, and it seems that the divergent interests of policy makers and the industry contribute equally to the end result not being in the Public's interest; and 3) The Hayne RC substantiated many concerns the Public had over the practices of a proportion of individuals in the Financial Advice sector, but it seems some Trustees have chosen to continue the attitude that processes and decisions not unambiguously in a Trust's best interests are ok if you can conceal them... rather than recognise the Public's growing impatience with Advisor conflicts of interest and the Public's increasing willingness to change their financial arrangements so that their funds either go to a different Trustee, or go into different assets altogether.

Add new comment