Schedule A Free Call

Governance & Leadership

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (Retail Cases Omnibus) [2025] FCA 1593

ASIC v ANZ (Retail Cases Omnibus) [2025] FCA 1593 examines systemic failures across hardship notices, bonus interest and deceased-estate administration. The decision highlights the need for reliable customer-outcomes systems, accurate records, effective monitoring and board oversight of recurring operational compliance failures.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Auto & General Insurance Company Limited [2025] FCAFC 76

ASIC v Auto & General Insurance Company Ltd [2025] FCAFC 76 clarifies how unfair contract terms are assessed in insurance contracts. The Full Court emphasised proper construction, transparency, legitimate interests and the importance of drafting clear, proportionate customer notification obligations.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v United Super Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1453

In ASIC v United Super Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1453, the Federal Court imposed $23.5 million in penalties over unreasonable delays in death, terminal illness and disability claims, together with breach-reporting failures. The decision reinforces trustee accountability for outsourced claims handling, data quality, remediation and timely escalation.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v The Cash Store Pty Ltd (in liq) [2014] FCA 926

In ASIC v The Cash Store Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2014] FCA 926, the Federal Court found systemic responsible-lending failures and unconscionable sales of consumer credit insurance to vulnerable payday-loan customers. The decision highlights the need for proper inquiries, verification, suitability assessments and effective oversight of outsourced credit functions.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v AGM Markets Pty Ltd (in liquidation)(No 3) [2020] FCA 208


In ASIC v AGM Markets Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 3) [2020] FCA 208, the Federal Court found extensive breaches involving unlicensed personal advice, inappropriate recommendations, misleading conduct, unconscionable systems and inadequate AFSL supervision. The decision confirms that licensees may outsource functions, but not their statutory responsibility.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Select AFSL Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 786


In ASIC v Select AFSL Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 786, the Federal Court found extensive contraventions involving conflicted remuneration, misleading sales practices, vulnerable consumers and failures to provide financial services efficiently, honestly and fairly. The decision also reinforces director accountability for high-risk incentive schemes and outsourced call-centre operations.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission in the matter of NSG Services Pty Ltd v NSG Services Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 345

In ASIC v NSG Services Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 345, the Federal Court found repeated failures to comply with the best-interests and appropriate-advice obligations. The judgment also highlights the significance of external compliance reports, including Assured Support reviews, where identified deficiencies are not properly implemented or remediated.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v AMP Financial Planning Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 69


In ASIC v AMP Financial Planning Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 69, the Federal Court imposed $5.175 million in penalties for failures to supervise advisers engaged in insurance rewriting. The decision underscores that formal compliance systems are ineffective without timely escalation, decisive management action and robust customer remediation.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis (No 9) [2018] FCA 385

In ASIC v Cassimatis (No 9) [2018] FCA 385, the Federal Court imposed $70,000 penalties and seven-year disqualification orders on each former Storm Financial director. The decision highlights how serious governance failures, customer vulnerability and prolonged non-compliance can attract substantial personal sanctions even without dishonesty.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis (No 8) [2016] FCA 1023

In ASIC v Cassimatis (No 8) [2016] FCA 1023, the Federal Court found that the directors of Storm Financial breached their duty of care and diligence under s 180(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The decision is a leading authority on director accountability, foreseeable compliance risk and “stepping-stone” liability in Australian financial services.
Read Case Insight

Step 1 of 8 - Your Role

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Assess your ASIC exposure

Answer a few targeted questions to identify where your compliance may not stand up under ASIC review.

Takes less than 2 minutes. No preparation required.

What best describes your role?