feedSubscribe to our news feeds
Archived Posts Lists

Australian Regulatory Compliance Review
Australian Technology and IP Business
Credit Union and Mutual Law
National Consumer Credit Reform
Personal Property Securities Australia
Longview Business Insights
Australian Private Health Insurers
Wills, Trusts, Super
Mutuals Resource Centre

Resources

Commonwealth legislation
Corporate Governance
Not-for-Profit links
Regulator Links

October 30, 2006

Price-rigging class action settles

Maurice Blackburn Cashman Lawyers report that the Federal Court has approved a $30.5 million
settlement in Australia’s first ever cartel class action. The action was against multinational pharmaceutical companies Roche, BASF and Aventis for fixing prices of animal vitamins during the 1990’s.

Those affected included manufacturers, distributors and suppliers of pre-mix, stock feed; livestock, and veterinary and performance enhancing preparations; manufacturers of pet foods and farmers that lost
market share or paid inflated prices as a result of the cartel.

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 30th October 2006 by David Jacobson in Trade Practices

October 28, 2006

Spam Act penalty for Clarity1

ACMA has welcomed the imposition of $5.5 million fine on Clarity1 and its director for sending spam emails.

Earlier this year, the Federal Court found Clarity1 had contravened the Spam Act in sending at least 231 million commercial
emails in twelve months after the Spam Act 2003 commenced in April
2004, with most of these messages unsolicited and in breach of the Act. The Federal Court fined Clarity1 $4.5 million and Director Wayne Robert Mansfield $1 million.

It is the first time an Australian company has been fined under the Act for sending spam.
The company also has been banned from sending any unsolicited emails.

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 28th October 2006 by David Jacobson in Compliance, Marketing

October 27, 2006

Must authorised representatives refer to their licensee?

In QFS 165 ASIC has reminded authorised representatives (and general insurance
distributors) they must generally refer to their Australian financial
service (AFS) licensee in their business documents that are connected to
the provision of a financial service.

Their business documents must not create the
impression that they act as principal in relation to the financial
services that they provide.

The FAQ gives examples of when disclosure is required.

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 27th October 2006 by David Jacobson in Compliance, Financial Services, Insurance

October 26, 2006

Low-doc loan declared unjust

In Permanent Mortgages Pty Ltd v Michael Robert Cook and Karen Cook [2006]  NSWSC 1104 the NSW Supreme Court declared a loan contract and mortgage unjust, following the decision in Khoshaba.

The borrowers (defendants) executed a mortgage over their home. They were substantially in arrears and the mortgagee (plaintiff) sought possession.

The following quotes set out the distinguishing features of the case:

"78 The public interest is one of the
matters that the court must have regard to under s70. On this issue
over the objection of the Plaintiff, I admitted evidence by Dr Steve
Keen, Associate Professor of Economics and Finance at the University of
Western Sydney.

79 After reviewing the Defendants’
borrowings, for reasons which he gave in a lengthy and detailed report,
he categorised the subject mortgage as evidencing a “Ponzi” loan,
namely one which “can only be repaid by either taking out a larger
subsequent loan, or by selling the asset that was financed using the
loan”. He also described it as a “low doc” loan, that is one where
borrowers self verify their income in the application process. He said
that such loans are:

          “designed mainly for the self-employed
          or those with irregular income who do not have the documentation
          required to obtain a conventional housing loan.”

80 As to the public interest involved in “low doc” and “Ponzi” loans, Professor Keen said:

          “(a) Standard home loans are limited
          in size by the need for the borrower to establish that he/she can repay
          the loan out of income.

          (b) Legitimate “Low “Doc Loans” are a
          necessary development of income-based loans i

          (c) Ponzi Loans are loans that can
          only be repaid by either taking out a larger subsequent loan, or by
          selling the asset that was financed using the loan.

          (d) Ponzi Lending can occur in Low Doc
          Loans because the loosening of income-verification standards enables
          loans to substantially exceed the size that could be met out of
          borrower’s actual income.

          (e) The Subject Loan to the Cooks was a Ponzi Loan.

          ………………………………………….

          (g) Were the practice of Ponzi Lending
          to become widespread, it would substantially increase the tendency of
          the Australian financial system to asset bubbles and subsequent
          financial crises, by:

              i accelerating the accumulation of excessive debt during the up-swing to an asset bubble;

              ii accelerating the rate of decline during the bursting of the bubble; and

          iii causing the recovery to take much longer.

          (h) Ponzi Loans thus have adverse economic consequences that extend well beyond the immediate parties to the loan agreement.

    ……

    85 Against any public interest in
    discouraging loans of the type identified by Professor Keen and Mr
    Carraill, there is, of course, a public interest in the enforcement of
    contractual obligations freely entered into. In the result, I do not
    regard the public interest as of much significance in resolving this
    case. Rather, I think the greater focus should be upon factors personal
    to the Defendants, or more directly concerned with the particular
    transaction…

    88 Whether I should hold the mortgage
    unjust in this case involves a balancing exercise. On the one hand are
    the circumstances that the Defendants speak English as their first
    language; were experienced borrowers; had the services of a solicitor;
    were extremely anxious to obtain the loan; and were prepared to sign
    false statements and procure false certificates. On the other hand, the
    beneficial nature of the Code indicates that it was intended to protect
    the unsophisticated and meagrely educated, such as the Defendants, from
    their own foolishness. Given the means of the Defendants and their
    credit history, the Plaintiff, in my view, was aware, or would have
    been aware, had it made the most perfunctory of enquiries, that the
    Defendants were not capable of servicing the loan even at the lower
    rate of interest and could only satisfy their obligations by selling
    the mortgaged property for a sum sufficient to cover the principal and
    interest. It was likely that they would thus become obligated to pay
    interest on the amount of the credit, not at 8.8% p.a., but at the much
    higher rate of 13.8%….

    92 Undoubtedly, the Defendants were
    foolish but, in my opinion, the circumstances of this case constitute
    the “something more” contemplated by Basten JA [in Khoshaba], in that the Plaintiff
    or its agents who were, or should have been, aware of the foolishness
    had, in effect, encouraged it. I am of the opinion that the subject
    mortgage and the credit contract, pursuant to which it was given,
    should be held to be unjust within s70 of the Code."

      Print This Post Print This Post

      Posted 26th October 2006 by David Jacobson in Financial Services

      October 25, 2006

      IMF reviews Australia’s financial regulatory system

      According to the IMF’s 2006 Financial System Stability Assessment of Australia, Australia’s financial regulatory and supervisory structure is sound. There is generally a high level of compliance by APRA and ASIC with international standards. Areas for further strengthening are the AML/CFT framework, the capacity of APRA and ASIC, and the framework for the resolution of failed financial institutions and crisis management.

      IMF’s findings included:

      • The banking system, which holds approximately half of total financial systems assets, is sound, with high earnings, strong asset growth, and low levels of problem assets. Stress tests did not reveal near-term stability concerns, suggesting the banking system is likely to be resilient to adverse shocks.
      • The banking system, nevertheless, faces a number of vulnerabilities including (i) macroeconomic shocks; (ii) significant exposure to a highly leveraged household sector; (iii) significant dependence on wholesale funding; (iv) increased competitive pressure; and (v) overall lack of diversification.

      Print This Post Print This Post

      Posted 25th October 2006 by David Jacobson in Financial Services

      October 24, 2006

      KPMG publishes 2006 annual building society and credit union survey

      KPMG’s Building Societies and Credit Unions Survey 2006 for the period 1 July 2005 – 30 June 2006 has been released.

      KPMG concluded that building societies and credit unions are achieving solid growth, however margins are being squeezed.This pressure on margins, combined with continuing regulatory demands which disproportionately increase costs for smaller players, continue to pressure credit unions, particularly the smaller ones, to consolidate. The number of credit unions decreased from 164 to 147 during 2005- 2006 while building societies still numbered 14.

      However, further mergers have been announced for 2006/07 and while most consolidation will be friendly, there is potential for hostile takeover activity.

      Print This Post Print This Post

      Posted 24th October 2006 by David Jacobson in Financial Services

      October 19, 2006

      What makes mutuals different?

      APRA Chair Dr John Laker spoke this week on What makes a strong mutual? to an audience of credit unions and mutual building societies. The speech is interesting as much for what it did not say as for what it did say.

      What didn’t it say? Apart from a few words at the beginning (see below) it did not clearly identify (particularly in the mind of a regulator) what makes a mutual different. He said:

      "‘What Makes a Strong Mutual?’ The simple answer is that a strong mutual would look like any other strong authorised deposit-taking institution (ADI). That must be right. However, the question demands a fuller response, one that takes into account the community links and competitive position of mutuals and their main distinguishing feature — the coherence of interests between owners and customers because they are one and the same".

      He concluded by saying:

      "Looking ahead, the challenges for mutual ADIs are to preserve their relevance in Australia’s highly competitive financial system and to leverage off their brand and market differentiation, whilst managing the pressures to compete on price and services."

      In between there was little about the distinguishing features of mutuals.

      ABACUS has sought to value the benefit of being a member of a mutual credit union or building society:

      "The member valuation analysis (by Cannex) from June 2005 to June
      2006 measured deposit rates and lending rates, as well as all fees
      associated with deposits and loans during the year. On average across
      1.25m accounts Cannex found that each member derived an average of
      $112.53 in benefits. This is in addition to the average $77 p.a.
      increase in retained earnings per member ultimately returned in the
      form of better products and services."

      Print This Post Print This Post

      Posted 19th October 2006 by David Jacobson in Corporate Governance, Financial Services

      October 18, 2006

      AML Transition

      ABACUS has reported a speech by Justice Minister Ellison (not yet available on his website) in which he said that the new anti-money laundering laws will be phased in over two years, with a further one-year amnesty period for businesses making an effort to comply.

      "Once passed, there will be
      a phased implementation of the new AML/CTF Act and Rules over 24
      months, with the fundamental obligations implemented first followed by
      those that are more complex," Senator Ellison said. "In addition, I’ve
      proposed a 12 month amnesty period whereby the Australian Transaction
      Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) will focus on reducating
      businesses and will only seek punitive remedies for non-compliance
      where businesses are not making reasonable steps to reach compliance."

      Print This Post Print This Post

      Posted 18th October 2006 by David Jacobson in Anti-money laundering

      October 15, 2006

      Self-policing regulation

      The ASIC FSR regime and the ACCC cartel whistleblowing immunity rules are unusual in that they are situations where regulators encourage the businesses they supervise to voluntarily disclose their breaches. In fact the Corporations Act FSR provisions say it is an offence not to disclose a breach.

      So, are regulators really necessary? In Coerced Confessions the authors examined
      a United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) program that
      encourages companies to self-disclose violations of environmental laws
      and regulations in exchange for reduced sanctions.

      The result? Companies are more likely to self-disclose if they were recently
      subjected to one of several different enforcement measures and if they
      were provided with immunity from prosecution for self-disclosed
      violations.

      Print This Post Print This Post

      Posted 15th October 2006 by David Jacobson in Compliance

      October 12, 2006

      Credit Code E-commerce amendments commence

      The e-commerce provisions of the Consumer Credit and Trade Measurement Amendment Act 2006 and the Consumer Credit Amendment Regulation (No.1) 2006 commenced on 9 October 2006.

      The objectives of the Act in relation to ecommerce:
      • facilitate the application of the electronic transactions legislation in each State and Territory to the Consumer Credit Code;
      • ensure that consumer protection is not diminished as a result of a debtor transacting in an electronic environment.

      In particular amendments have been made to provide for a debtor to specifically consent to receive electronic communications and notices.

      Print This Post Print This Post

      Posted 12th October 2006 by David Jacobson in Financial Services