Archives: Case Insights

AFCA Determination 12-24-140667

AFCA’s determination in Case 12-24-140667 highlights the risks of failing to deliver ongoing financial advice services. Halo Financial Services was ordered to compensate clients after missed insurance reviews and inadequate superannuation monitoring contributed to substantial losses.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Lanterne Fund Services Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 353

ASIC v Lanterne Fund Services Pty Limited [2024] FCA 353 has broader implications for AFSL holders, particularly businesses operating through corporate authorised representatives and authorised representatives. The decision reinforces that licensees remain responsible for effective supervision, risk management, competent responsible managers, adequate resourcing and representative training, and cannot rely principally on self-attestation, informal oversight or outsourced functions to satisfy their statutory obligations.

ASIC v Choosi Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1196

ASIC v Choosi Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1196 examines misleading representations about the breadth of Choosi’s life and funeral insurance comparison service. The decision highlights the need for accurate comparison claims, clear disclosure of insurer coverage, prominent qualifications and controls that assess the overall consumer impression across websites, advertising and call-centre journeys.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Oztures Trading Pty Ltd [2026]

ASIC v Oztures Trading Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 509 examines Binance Australia Derivatives’ systemic misclassification of retail clients as wholesale clients or sophisticated investors. The decision highlights the need for legally valid onboarding controls, Australian-law-specific training and effective retail product protections.

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.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v National Australia Bank [2025] FCA 947

ASIC v National Australia Bank [2025] FCA 947 examines systemic failures to provide timely hardship responses to financially vulnerable customers. The decision highlights the need for reliable workflow controls, daily monitoring of continuing contraventions and effective remediation where statutory notices are missed.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Firstmac Limited (Penalty Hearing) [2025] FCA 12

ASIC v Firstmac Ltd (Penalty Hearing) [2025] FCA 12 is a significant design and distribution obligations decision concerning inadequate target market controls. The judgment confirms that product issuers and distributors must operationalise target market determinations through effective screening, staff training, documented procedures and ongoing monitoring.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v DOD Bookkeeping Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 2) [2025] FCA 395

ASIC v DOD Bookkeeping Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2025] FCA 395 examines systemic failures in SMSF property advice, vertically integrated conflicts and transaction-linked adviser bonuses. The decision highlights licensee responsibility for client-specific advice, remuneration governance and monitoring of predetermined advice models.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Mercer Superannuation (Australia) Limited [2024] FCA 850

ASIC v Mercer Superannuation (Australia) Ltd [2024] FCA 850 is a major Australian greenwashing decision concerning misleading ESG exclusion claims. The case confirms that superannuation trustees and fund managers must ensure sustainability statements reflect actual portfolio holdings, including indirect and pooled exposures.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v AustralianSuper Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 102

ASIC v AustralianSuper Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 102 sets an important enforcement benchmark for superannuation trustees. The decision confirms that best-interests duties require effective operational systems, accountable ownership and timely remediation where duplicate accounts cause avoidable fees, insurance premiums and lost investment earnings.