ASIC Updates 2026

Key dates

2016-07-01

Beginning of the period during which Sunshine Loans entered into contracts containing the unlawful amendment fee.

2019-03-13

Relevant fee contraventions became civil penalty provisions; civil penalties were available only for contraventions from this date.

2020-11-01

Sunshine Loans ceased charging the amendment or rescheduling fee shortly after ASIC intervention.

2022-06-01

ASIC commenced Federal Court civil penalty proceedings against Sunshine Loans.

2024-04-12

The Federal Court found that Sunshine Loans had contravened the National Credit Code by imposing, charging and accepting the prohibited fee.

2025-03-24

The Full Federal Court dismissed Sunshine Loans' liability appeal and determined the relevant appeals in ASIC's favour.

2026-03-18

The High Court unanimously dismissed Sunshine Loans' appeal concerning the recusal issue, allowing the penalty matter to return to the Federal Court.

2026-11-06

The Federal Court ordered Sunshine Loans to pay a $5.5 million civil penalty and ASIC's costs.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory every fee and charge applied to small amount credit contracts and map each one to an expressly permitted category under the National Credit Code.
• Lenders should consider testing repayment-date changes, hardship arrangements, restructures and other contract variations to confirm that fees are not imposed when a consumer is not in default.
• Firms should consider conducting a historical review of fee configuration, customer communications, contract templates, payment records and general ledger data to identify comparable conduct and quantify affected consumers.
• Where potentially unlawful fees are identified, firms should consider stopping the relevant charging logic, preserving records, assessing remediation and notifying relevant governance bodies and regulators where appropriate.
• Credit licensees may wish to strengthen legal review and compliance sign-off for product terms and fee changes, including documented evidence supporting the legality of each fee.
• Boards and senior management should consider whether compliance monitoring adequately tests fee restrictions for products used by financially vulnerable consumers and whether identified issues are escalated promptly.
• Firms should consider reviewing whether their dispute-resolution and remediation processes enable affected consumers to obtain redress through internal complaints handling and the Australian Financial Complaints Authority.

What changed

This is an enforcement outcome rather than a new legislative rule. The Court confirmed that small amount credit contract providers may impose only the fee categories permitted by the National Credit Code: an establishment fee, a monthly fee, a fee payable on default, or a government fee, charge or duty. A $35 fee for rescheduling a repayment where the consumer was not in default did not fall within those categories.

Key dates

2026-11-04

ASIC published the enforcement notice covering 22 large proprietary companies and confirmed total payments of $4,356,000.

2025-08-01

Approximate month in which ASIC commenced its data-focused surveillance of large proprietary companies and other entities for late or missing financial reports.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map every Australian entity in the corporate group against its financial reporting obligations, including changes in size, ownership, control, corporate structure and operations.
• Firms should consider maintaining a central obligations register recording each entity's financial year end, applicable reporting category, audit requirements, board approval milestones and ASIC lodgement deadline.
• Finance and governance functions may wish to schedule audit planning, management accounts, director approvals and electronic lodgement sufficiently early to address audit-related delays.
• Directors and company secretaries should consider reviewing whether any financial reports, directors' reports or auditors' reports are overdue and arranging prompt lodgement rather than waiting for ASIC contact.
• Groups may wish to document controls for identifying newly reportable entities, including entities that become large proprietary companies or become foreign-controlled.
• Compliance teams should consider retaining evidence of deadline monitoring, auditor engagement, escalation of reporting delays and remediation of overdue filings in case ASIC opens a surveillance review.
• Where ASIC has contacted an entity or an infringement notice has been paid, firms should consider confirming whether all outstanding reports have been lodged because ASIC states that its investigation may continue and payment does not resolve separate reporting obligations.

What changed

No new statutory reporting rule was introduced. ASIC has escalated enforcement of existing obligations under the Corporations Act 2001, including the requirement for large proprietary companies and other prescribed entities to prepare, audit and lodge required financial reports, directors' reports and auditors' reports within the applicable statutory period. For most entities required to lodge, the general deadline is within four months after financial year end; disclosing entities, registered schemes and registrable superannuation entities generally have three months.

Key dates

2018-08-03

iSignthis represented that less than 15% of quarterly revenue came from one-off or set-up fees; the Court found that the proportion exceeded 75% and that approximately AUD 3 million of one-off revenue and AUD 2.85 million of related one-off costs were not disclosed.

2020-05-12

iSignthis received Visa's letter communicating the finality of Visa's decision to terminate its relationship; the Court found that disclosure to the ASX was required on or shortly after this date.

2020-12-07

ASIC commenced civil penalty proceedings against iSignthis and Nickolas John Karantzis.

2022-05-11

iSignthis changed its name to Southern Cross Payments Ltd.

2022-11-04

Southern Cross Payments Ltd was delisted from the ASX.

2024-06-21

The Federal Court found that iSignthis had contravened disclosure laws and that Karantzis had breached relevant director duties.

2025-08-08

The Federal Court ordered iSignthis to pay a AUD 10 million penalty and ordered Karantzis to pay AUD 1 million and be disqualified from managing corporations for six years.

2025-09-05

iSignthis and Karantzis lodged appeals against the liability and penalty decisions.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reviewing continuous-disclosure procedures against Corporations Act 2001 section 674 and ASX Listing Rule 3.1, including escalation criteria for operational, commercial and revenue information.
• Compliance teams may wish to test whether financial reporting distinguishes recurring revenue from one-off or set-up fees and discloses material associated costs consistently with market communications.
• Listed entities should consider documenting how they assess materiality, finality and reasonable grounds for delay when a major counterparty indicates that a contract or relationship may end.
• Boards and senior officers may wish to review controls ensuring that information provided to the ASX is accurate, complete and not misleading, including verification of statements made in analyst briefings and investor presentations.
• Firms should consider confirming that trading suspensions do not cause disclosure controls to stop operating and that market-sensitive developments continue to be assessed during a suspension.
• Companies may wish to retain contemporaneous records of disclosure decisions, legal advice, board or committee deliberations and communications with counterparties where disclosure timing is disputed.
• Compliance teams should consider whether director and officer accountability frameworks adequately address the risk of personal civil penalties and disqualification for failures to take reasonable steps to ensure ASX information is accurate.

What changed

The appeal did not introduce a new statutory obligation, but it confirms the substantial enforcement consequences of existing Australian continuous-disclosure and director-duty requirements. The Court upheld findings concerning iSignthis's failure to accurately disclose the extent of one-off revenue and related costs, and its failure from 12 May 2020 to disclose Visa's decision to terminate its relationship and the reasons communicated by Visa.

Key dates

2019-08-01

Start of the period in which ASIC alleges more than $600 million was invested in First Guardian and the alleged failures occurred.

2024-05-01

Falcon Capital froze or suspended redemptions from First Guardian, subject to limited exceptions.

2025-02-24

The Federal Court made interim orders freezing the assets of Falcon Capital, First Guardian and David Anderson.

2025-04-09

The Federal Court ordered Falcon Capital and First Guardian to be wound up and appointed liquidators and a receiver in related orders.

2026-10-30

ASIC announced commencement of civil penalty proceedings against David Anderson and Simon Selimaj and its application for leave to proceed against Falcon Capital in liquidation.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory all related-party, connected-party and director-linked investments across managed investment schemes, including indirect exposures through controlled underlying funds.
• Firms should consider testing whether each private-credit, property and private-equity investment has current executed documentation, enforceable security, independent valuation support, documented approval, appropriate concentration analysis and evidence of ongoing monitoring.
• Responsible entities and trustees may wish to reassess whether investment committees exercise meaningful independent oversight, particularly where a chief executive, director or investment officer can originate, approve or vary investments without effective challenge.
• Firms should consider refreshing conflicts registers and reviewing whether conflicts were identified, disclosed, avoided or managed before investor funds were committed, including conflicts involving hospitality, alcohol-related businesses, technology ventures, property developments and payments to entities controlled by officers or associates.
• Product issuers may wish to review product disclosure statements and other investor communications for unsupported claims about robustness, diversification, security, liquidity, risk controls or investment processes, and assess whether any corrective disclosure or remediation is required.
• Platform operators, trustees and advice licensees may wish to review onboarding and due-diligence files for complex private-market products, including verification of valuations, underlying-fund registration status, custody arrangements, liquidity assumptions and the identity of related parties.
• Advice licensees may wish to test whether recommendations to transfer superannuation or establish an SMSF and invest in high-risk managed schemes were supported by documented best-interests analysis, appropriate disclosure and suitability assessments.
• Senior managers and boards may wish to preserve records demonstrating challenge, escalation, monitoring and follow-up of exceptions, red flags, valuation concerns, redemption restrictions and unusual related-party payments.

What changed

This is an enforcement action rather than a new rule or generally applicable legislative amendment. ASIC alleges that Falcon Capital, as responsible entity of the First Guardian Master Fund, failed to maintain effective investment governance, due diligence, documentation, security, conflict management and oversight; misled investors through product disclosure statements describing robust investment processes; and allowed at least $57 million to be paid to entities controlled by Anderson or Selimaj.

Key dates

2026-12-04 Deadline

ASIC consultation on CS 69 and the proposed RG 172 update closes at 5pm AEDT.

Suggested considerations

• Market licensees should consider submitting responses to CS 69 by 5pm AEDT on 4 December 2026, addressing whether the proposed methodology is workable for their business model and venue type.
• Compliance teams may wish to map current financial-resources calculations against the proposed six-month minimum and identify whether all venue, group, outsourcing and related-party operating costs are included.
• Licensees should consider separating liquid resources supporting continuity and recovery from capital buffers supporting positive net assets and loss absorption, and documenting the legal availability of each resource.
• Market operators may wish to perform severe-but-plausible recovery and orderly-wind-down scenarios, including critical-service recovery, prolonged disruption, higher professional costs and support for affected users.
• Significant market venues should consider developing or enhancing scenario analysis, stress-testing governance, assumptions, frequency, management information and escalation thresholds.
• Finance and compliance functions may wish to prepare evidence linking financial-resources calculations to specific balance-sheet items and to the methodologies and assumptions reported under section 792F.
• Boards and senior management should consider reviewing dividend, distribution, intra-group funding and other capital-management controls to prevent actions that could cause or reasonably be expected to cause a financial-resources shortfall.
• Licensees should consider establishing documented monitoring, notification and remediation processes for actual or prospective shortfalls, including assessment of notification obligations under section 792B and restoration timeframes agreed with ASIC.

What changed

The consultation proposes revised RG 172 guidance supporting the existing obligation in section 792A(1)(d) of the Corporations Act 2001 to maintain sufficient resources to operate a market properly. A licensee would assess resources for all of its activities, not only a particular venue, and would generally need resources sufficient to cover at least six months of operating expenses; the assessment should include relevant service and outsourcing costs, including related-party arrangements.

Key dates

2017-09-01

Start of the period identified by ASIC for the alleged directors’ and officers’ duty breaches concerning the Crown insurance arrangements; the date is approximate because ASIC states only September 2017.

2018-11-30

End of the period identified by ASIC for the alleged directors’ and officers’ duty breaches; ASIC states November 2018.

2022-03-01

ACBF entities entered liquidation; ASIC states March 2022, without specifying the exact day.

2026-02-01

The contested liability hearing concerning Jones took place in February 2026; ASIC has not specified the exact day.

2026-06-30 Deadline

Closing date for applications to the Government’s Youpla Support Program.

2026-10-30

ASIC announced the findings against Jones and Pattenden and the orders agreed with Pattenden.

2026-12-01

Payments under the Youpla Support Program are scheduled to continue being processed until this date.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reviewing board and committee processes for identifying, disclosing and managing actual or potential conflicts involving directors, officers and related parties.
• Compliance teams may wish to test whether related-party insurance, reinsurance, outsourcing and service arrangements are demonstrably in the company’s interests, supported by independent analysis and properly documented board decisions.
• Boards may wish to review whether premium changes, counterparty concentration, offshore structures and insurer solvency risks are escalated promptly and communicated appropriately to affected customers.
• Insurers and other firms serving vulnerable or First Nations consumers should consider whether product governance, distribution controls and customer communications adequately address cultural, language, literacy and affordability risks.
• Companies should consider retaining evidence showing that directors challenged management assumptions, considered viable alternatives and monitored the ongoing financial and consumer consequences of material arrangements.
• Legal and compliance teams may wish to monitor the later penalty hearing for Jones and the reserved decisions concerning Jonathan Law, Michael Wilson and Geoffrey Clayton, as those outcomes may provide further indications of ASIC’s approach to individual accountability and director disqualification.
• Firms should distinguish this case from a new industry-wide rule: the immediate orders apply to Pattenden, while the broader compliance significance is the enforcement precedent and ASIC’s stated priority of protecting vulnerable consumers.

What changed

This is an enforcement outcome rather than a new rule or general compliance obligation. Pattenden is subject to a $250,000 civil penalty and a 15-year prohibition on managing corporations; Jones has been found liable, with penalties to be determined at a later hearing. ASIC’s case concerns alleged breaches of sections 180, 181 and 182 of the Corporations Act 2001 arising from insurance arrangements with Vanuatu-based Crown Insurance Services Limited, which ASIC alleged was beneficially owned and controlled by Pattenden and Jonathan Law and was not in the interests of the ACBF entities.

Key dates

2026-10-26

ASIC announced and made the interim stop order against the Murdoch Clarke Mortgage Fund PDS.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider suspending affected offers, issuances, sales, transfers and distribution activity and checking all intermediary and platform instructions against the terms of the interim order.
• Compliance teams may wish to conduct a line-by-line PDS review against Corporations Act 2001 sections 1013C, 1013D and 1013F, including whether all material information, fees and costs, risks and withdrawal terms are disclosed clearly, concisely and effectively.
• Fund managers should consider identifying and describing all actual, potential and permitted related-party transactions, including the parties involved, nature of the arrangements, decision-making controls, remuneration and associated conflicts.
• Compliance teams may wish to reconcile every fee, cost, spread, margin, related-party charge and indirect cost in the PDS with constitutions, investment management agreements, responsible-entity arrangements, financial statements and actual operating practice.
• Managers should consider presenting lending, property-security, interest-only, principal-repayment, valuation, concentration, liquidity, default, impairment and loss risks in a prominent and investor-comprehensible manner rather than relying on generic risk wording.
• Firms should consider prominently distinguishing the Fund's usual withdrawal processing practice from the responsible entity's legal discretion and maximum permitted timeframe, including any suspension, gate, queue, notice, liquidity or repayment conditions.
• Distributors and advisers may wish to review current product lists, advice templates, research ratings and retail communications to ensure they do not continue promoting or recommending the Fund while the order is in force.
• Private credit managers should consider reviewing comparable PDSs and target market determinations proactively, given ASIC's stated surveillance focus and the recent pattern of interim intervention followed by required disclosure remediation.

What changed

The interim order immediately halts the relevant fundraising and secondary dealing activities under the Fund's PDS; it is not a new generally applicable rule or a final finding of contravention. ASIC identified concerns that the PDS fails to disclose related-party transactions, inadequately explains fees and costs, provides insufficient or unclear risk information, and does not adequately and prominently explain withdrawals. ASIC may make a final stop order if the concerns are not addressed in a timely manner, after Murdoch Clarke has an opportunity to make submissions.

Key dates

2023-02-28

Rex issued the profit forecast at the centre of the proceedings.

2023-04-14

The NSW Supreme Court found that Rex’s continuous disclosure breach commenced because it failed to disclose that it no longer had reasonable grounds for the forecast.

2024-12-01

ASIC commenced proceedings against Rex, the three non-executive directors, and former executive chairman and chief executive Lim Kim Hai; the source specifies December 2024 but not an exact day.

2026-06-30

The NSW Supreme Court found that Rex breached its continuous disclosure obligations but dismissed ASIC’s case against the three non-executive directors and did not establish misleading conduct by Rex.

2026-08-20

ASIC filed a Notice of Intention to Appeal the dismissal of part of its case, according to the related court-update material.

2026-10-20

Lim Kim Hai was disqualified from managing corporations for four years and ordered to pay an $800,000 pecuniary penalty after admitting involvement in Rex’s continuous disclosure breaches and breaches of directors’ duties.

2026-10-23

ASIC announced that it is seeking leave to appeal the findings concerning the three former non-executive directors.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reviewing controls for monitoring earnings forecasts against current management information, operational trends and board materials, including clear escalation triggers when a forecast may no longer have reasonable grounds.
• Boards and non-executive directors may wish to ensure that material adverse trends, forecast variances and management warnings are clearly documented, discussed and escalated through formal board and disclosure committees.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether directors receive sufficiently clear and timely information to identify potential continuous disclosure issues, rather than relying only on aggregated financial reports or informal updates.
• Listed entities should consider documenting the basis for continuing, correcting or withdrawing earnings guidance and the decision-making process for ASX disclosure under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and applicable ASX Listing Rules.
• Firms should monitor the appeal process and any appellate guidance on the relationship between corporate continuous disclosure liability under section 674A and individual directors’ duties under section 180.
• Boards may wish to review director induction and continuing education concerning continuous disclosure, reasonable grounds for forecasts, escalation responsibilities and the evidentiary importance of board records.

What changed

No new binding obligation or threshold has been introduced by this publication. ASIC is challenging the primary judge’s findings that the evidence did not establish that the three non-executive directors knew Rex no longer had reasonable grounds for its 28 February 2023 positive operating-profit forecast, or that they therefore breached their duties under section 180 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Key dates

2025-10-31 Deadline

Deadline by which the 21 companies were allegedly required to lodge their financial reports for the year ended 30 June 2025.

2025-08-01

ASIC commenced the surveillance of late and non-lodgement of financial reports referred to in the publication.

2026-10-21

ASIC published the enforcement release announcing payment of the 21 infringement notices.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should identify every Australian entity in their group that is a public company, large proprietary company, disclosing entity or registered scheme and map each entity to its applicable reporting and lodgement deadline.
• Compliance teams may wish to establish a documented annual-report timetable working backwards from the statutory deadline, including audit dependencies, board approval, director declarations, ASIC lodgement and contingency escalation.
• Groups should consider assigning entity-level accountability for lodgement rather than relying solely on a parent-company or central finance function, and retaining evidence of deadline monitoring, escalation and board oversight.
• Companies approaching a deadline may wish to assess promptly whether an extension or other available regulatory process is relevant; late lodgement does not remove the underlying breach risk once the deadline has passed.
• Firms should consider reviewing director and officer governance arrangements against Corporations Act 2001 section 344, which requires officers to take all reasonable steps to secure compliance with financial-reporting requirements, and section 180 where applicable.
• Recipients of an ASIC infringement notice should consider the statutory response options and obtain appropriate legal advice before paying, disputing or seeking additional time, while recognising that payment is not an admission or conviction.
• Groups should review whether delays in one entity indicate a broader control weakness affecting subsidiaries with different financial year ends or reporting classifications.

What changed

No new filing deadline or substantive accounting rule was introduced. ASIC has, however, materially reinforced its enforcement position under the Corporations Act 2001: companies required to lodge financial reports must meet the applicable statutory deadline, and ASIC may issue infringement notices for alleged failures. Each of the 21 companies paid $198,000 under an infringement notice; payment is not an admission of guilt or liability and does not constitute a conviction.

Key dates

2021-04-22

Beginning of the period in which ASIC alleges the Panacea Capital Cryptocurrency Investment Fund was offered without an AFS licence.

2022-06-17

End of the period in which ASIC alleges the Crypto Fund operated without an AFS licence.

2024-03-21

ASIC announced that Brian Creigh was permanently banned from providing financial services or being involved in a financial services business.

2026-10-19

Creigh was charged in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court and granted conditional bail.

2026-10-20

ASIC published the enforcement release announcing the criminal charges.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider confirming that every entity and individual providing financial product advice, dealing, arranging or other financial services in Australia holds the required AFS licence or is properly appointed as an authorised representative for the relevant activities.
• Compliance teams may wish to map digital-asset products against the financial product and financial services definitions in Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), including where pooled investor money is used to pursue returns from a portfolio of digital assets.
• Firms should consider reviewing marketing materials, fact sheets and investor communications for unsupported claims about licensing status, capital protection, guarantees, historical performance, targeted returns and the nature of underlying investments.
• Compliance teams may wish to strengthen onboarding and ongoing due diligence for digital-asset fund operators, directors, promoters, overseas counterparties and receiving entities, including checks against ASIC banning and disqualification records.
• Firms should consider reviewing transaction-monitoring and escalation controls for investor funds moving to offshore entities or unrelated investment vehicles, with particular attention to circumstances that could raise proceeds-of-crime or fraud concerns.
• Distributors and professional intermediaries may wish to retain evidence of licence verification, product governance reviews, investor disclosures and the basis for any representations made to prospective investors.
• Firms should consider treating the charges as allegations not yet determined by a court and separating the criminal proceeding from ASIC’s earlier administrative banning action when assessing legal, conduct and reputational risk.

What changed

No new licensing rule or general obligation was introduced. The publication announces enforcement proceedings: one charge under section 911A(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for carrying on a financial services business without an AFS licence, and one charge under section 400.3(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) for dealing with proceeds of crime worth $1 million or more. The matter is being prosecuted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions following ASIC’s referral of a criminal brief.

Key dates

2023-02-28

Rex issued the ASX announcement stating that it was optimistic of achieving positive operating profit for the financial year.

2023-06-20

Rex subsequently forecast a $35 million loss, according to the independent reporting and ASIC proceedings described in the surrounding litigation.

2024-07-30

Rex shares were suspended from trading when the company entered voluntary administration.

2024-12-11

ASIC commenced proceedings against Rex, Lim Kim Hai and three former non-executive directors.

2025-09-30

Rex ceased to be listed on the ASX, following its listing from November 2005 to September 2025.

2025-12-01

Rex was acquired by United States-based Air T and subsequently renamed Regional Express Holdings Pty Ltd.

2026-05-20

Lim Kim Hai admitted all alleged contraventions against him, including the section 180(1) directors’ duty breach and involvement in Rex’s section 674A(3) continuous disclosure contraventions.

2026-08-20

ASIC filed a Notice of Intention to Appeal the dismissal of part of its case against Rex and the former non-executive directors.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should review continuous disclosure policies and test whether material profit forecasts, earnings guidance and other market-sensitive statements are supported by documented, current and objectively reasonable assumptions.
• Boards and senior executives may wish to establish clear escalation triggers requiring immediate review of prior ASX announcements when financial performance deteriorates or underlying assumptions change.
• Compliance teams should consider maintaining an auditable record of the information available to directors when announcements are approved, including management forecasts, variance analysis, board papers and dissenting views.
• Listed entities should assess whether their procedures enable rapid correction, withdrawal or clarification of announcements that become inaccurate, misleading or unsupported, rather than waiting for the next scheduled results announcement.
• Boards may wish to confirm that directors understand the interaction between the company’s continuous disclosure obligations under section 674A of the Corporations Act 2001 and their personal duty of care and diligence under section 180(1).
• Firms should consider targeted training for executive and non-executive directors on market-sensitive information, earnings guidance, reasonable grounds for forecasts and escalation responsibilities.
• Companies involved in current or prospective enforcement matters may wish to preserve relevant board, forecast, email, announcement-approval and disclosure-committee records.

What changed

This is an enforcement outcome rather than a new rule or amended obligation. The Court approved a four-year disqualification under sections 206C and 206E of the Corporations Act 2001 and an $800,000 pecuniary penalty under section 1317G(1), with payment required within 28 days of the order. The case establishes a significant practical compliance signal for listed entities: directors and senior officers may be personally exposed where they fail to take reasonable steps to ensure accurate market disclosure, including correcting guidance that has become misleading or lacks reasonable grounds.

Key dates

2025-11-21

Daniel Juratowitch and Rachel Burdett of Cor Cordis were appointed liquidators of MWL.

2025-11-28

AFCA made a determination against MWL, which MWL failed to pay.

2026-09-16

The CSLR paid $90,031.34, including interest, in respect of the unpaid AFCA determination and notified ASIC.

2026-10-12

ASIC cancelled MWL’s Australian credit licence and commenced the specified 12-month continuation of AFCA membership.

2027-10-12 Deadline

MWL’s required continuation of AFCA membership ends, subject to any further applicable requirements.

Suggested considerations

• Credit licensees should consider maintaining controls that identify AFCA determinations, track payment deadlines and escalate any threatened or actual inability to pay to senior management and the board.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether unresolved AFCA determinations could trigger CSLR involvement and the consequent mandatory licence-cancellation risk under the National Consumer Credit Protection framework.
• Firms approaching licence cancellation, surrender or liquidation should consider confirming continuing AFCA membership obligations and preserving complaint-handling, client-file and remediation records for the applicable post-exit period.
• AFCA members should consider reviewing procedures for responding to complaints involving related entities, former representatives and businesses that have ceased trading or entered liquidation.
• Credit providers and intermediaries should consider monitoring ASIC enforcement involving MWL, Shield Master Fund and related entities for indicators relevant to advice referrals, distribution oversight, representative supervision and complaint remediation.
• Businesses that have paid CSLR levies or may be exposed to future CSLR funding should consider incorporating unpaid AFCA determinations and insolvency trends into conduct-risk and financial-planning assessments.

What changed

MWL’s Australian credit licence was cancelled following the unpaid AFCA determination dated 2025-11-28 and the subsequent CSLR compensation payment dated 2026-09-16. ASIC stated that it has no discretion to avoid cancellation and that the decision is not subject to merits review. MWL must nevertheless retain AFCA membership until 2027-10-12, allowing further complaints to be lodged for 12 months after the cancellation.

Key dates

2021-05-01

Shield Master Fund commenced operation; ASIC found that some SOAs nevertheless suggested Shield had generated returns or outperformed alternatives since 2016.

2023-09-18

Singh became authorised by MWL Financial Services.

2024-02-01

ASIC halted new offers of Shield investments through interim stop orders on four product disclosure statements.

2024-06-01

ASIC took action to secure assets held within Shield for the potential benefit of investors.

2024-12-23

Singh ceased being authorised by MWL.

2025-01-13

Singh became an authorised representative of Interprac Financial Planning.

2025-08-25

ASIC cancelled MWL’s Australian financial services licence and banned MWL director Nicholas Maikousis.

2025-11-21

Cor Cordis liquidators were appointed to MWL.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review advice files involving rollovers or switches of superannuation into high-risk, illiquid or newly established products, including whether the advice demonstrated the client’s objectives, financial situation, needs, risk tolerance, diversification and capacity to bear loss.
• Firms should consider testing Statements of Advice for unsupported historical-performance claims, back-cast comparisons, projections, graphs and descriptions that could imply a product existed or achieved returns before its actual commencement date.
• Licensees may wish to reassess approved-product-list governance, including independent product due diligence, evidence of product track record, liquidity and valuation risk, investment-class risk ratings, concentration limits and escalation where a product is proposed for a substantial proportion of retirement savings.
• Compliance teams should consider targeted surveillance of advice involving large superannuation rollovers, replacement products, high-growth allocations and advisers or referral channels associated with MWL, Shield or similar schemes.
• Firms should review conflicts and remuneration controls, including referral arrangements, lead-generator relationships, bonuses, volume incentives and disclosures in Financial Services Guides and Statements of Advice.
• Licensees may wish to verify adviser status on ASIC’s Banned and Disqualified Register and ensure that a banned person cannot provide financial services, control a financial services business or perform functions involved in carrying on such a business during the prohibition period.
• Affected consumers and firms handling complaints should consider preserving advice records, product research, call recordings, referral documentation and transaction evidence, and directing eligible consumer complaints to AFCA while recognising that MWL remains an AFCA member.
• Superannuation trustees and product issuers may wish to assess whether comparable products, distribution models or adviser incentives create risks of misleading disclosure, unsuitable concentration or advice that is not in members’ best interests.

What changed

This is a final administrative banning decision against an individual rather than a new generally applicable rule. Singh is prohibited from providing financial services for four years and the banning order has been recorded on ASIC’s Banned and Disqualified Register. ASIC found conduct inconsistent with the best-interests duty, the appropriateness obligation and prohibitions on false or materially misleading representations: approximately 75% of certain clients’ rolled-over superannuation was recommended for investment in Shield’s Growth or High Growth Class despite the product being high...

Key dates

2026-09-30

The extended sector-wide no-action position associated with INFO 225 ended.

2026-11-27 Deadline

Deadline for submissions on ASIC Consultation Paper 392, at 5pm AEDT.

2027-04-08

The DAF Act and the new DAP and TCP framework are scheduled to commence.

2027-10-07 Deadline

The proposed transition deadline by which platforms already operating as DAPs or TCPs should apply for an AFS licence or variation.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should assess whether their products, custody arrangements and platform activities fall within the DAP or TCP definitions under the DAF Act and the proposed ASIC guidance.
• Affected operators should consider whether they need a new Australian financial services licence or a variation to an existing licence, including whether any streamlined process may apply.
• Compliance teams may wish to map current custody, segregation, asset-control, reconciliation, trading, settlement and incident-management processes against the proposed standards.
• Firms should assess the likely impact of the proposed net tangible asset and other financial requirements on capital planning, liquidity and licence documentation.
• Operators should review proposed customer disclosure documents and platform rules, including how digital-asset risks, custody arrangements, execution and settlement are explained to clients.
• Businesses affected by the framework should consider submitting comments to ASIC by 2026-11-27 and engaging with ASIC's consultation events or targeted roundtables.
• Firms should maintain evidence of their licensing analysis and transition planning, particularly because the sector-wide INFO 225 no-action position ended on 2026-09-30 and independent commentary indicates that existing licensing obligations apply outside the relief period.

What changed

CP 392 proposes implementation guidance for digital asset platforms (DAPs), which hold digital tokens for clients and provide associated platform services, and tokenised custody platforms (TCPs), which record underlying client assets as digital tokens. ASIC is proposing standards covering asset holding, trading and settlement activities, and financial requirements including net tangible asset requirements where relevant.

Key dates

2021-04-20

Start of the relevant period during which Fortnum admitted the cybersecurity governance failures occurred.

2022-01-01

Independent industry reporting identified a 2022 cyber incident at a Fortnum authorised representative involving data relating to up to 9,828 clients; the ASIC publication does not specify the incident date.

2023-05-11

End of the relevant period covered by Fortnum’s admissions.

2025-07-22

ASIC commenced Supreme Court of NSW proceedings against Fortnum concerning alleged failures to manage and mitigate cybersecurity risks.

2026-10-12

The Supreme Court of NSW approved the agreed $1.35 million pecuniary penalty and ordered Fortnum to pay $250,000 toward ASIC’s costs.

2026-10-14

ASIC published the enforcement outcome and stated that this was its third cyber-resilience enforcement action against an AFSL holder, following RI Advice and FIIG Securities.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map cybersecurity governance to the licensee’s obligations under section 912A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), including documented ownership, escalation and board or senior-management oversight.
• Firms should consider assessing whether their cybersecurity policy applies consistently to authorised representatives, outsourced providers and other connected practices, with minimum controls, implementation evidence and exception-management processes.
• Licensees may wish to establish a documented assurance programme covering representative due diligence, cyber training, control testing, incident reporting, vulnerability management and periodic reviews of representative cyber resilience.
• Firms should consider whether they have access to suitably qualified cybersecurity expertise, either internally or through appropriately scoped external specialists, and retain evidence that advice informs the risk-management framework.
• Compliance teams may wish to test whether their risk-management system identifies and evaluates cyber risks across the entire advice network and whether monitoring results are reported to accountable senior personnel.
• Following a cyber incident or material control deficiency, firms should consider prompt escalation, preservation of evidence, assessment of notification obligations and constructive engagement with ASIC; Fortnum’s self-reporting and cooperation were identified as relevant factors in the agreed penalty.
• Firms should consider validating that cyber controls protect highly sensitive personal information, including identity documents, tax file numbers and financial-account details, and that remediation is independently verified rather than limited to policy updates.

What changed

No new rule or prospective compliance deadline was introduced. The enforcement outcome establishes a further ASIC precedent that an AFSL holder’s obligation to provide financial services efficiently, honestly and fairly and to maintain adequate risk-management systems extends to cybersecurity controls, specialist expertise and oversight of authorised representatives.

Key dates

2026-10-13

ASIC announced the interim stop order against Fidante Partners Limited; the order is stated to remain in force for 21 days unless revoked earlier.

Suggested considerations

• Fidante and relevant distributors should consider immediately suppressing retail issuance, PDS delivery and covered general advice activities within the scope of the stop order, while confirming the order’s operative terms and any revocation or variation.
• Fund issuers should consider conducting a documented TMD review against the product’s actual risks, liquidity and redemption arrangements, including whether capital-preservation language is compatible with exposure to global syndicated loans, asset-backed securities, derivatives and subordinated or residual CLO tranches.
• Compliance teams may wish to test whether stated risk classifications and portfolio-allocation limits are supported by the product’s loss profile, volatility, liquidity and concentration characteristics, with particular attention to any allowance for retail investors to allocate up to 50% of investable assets.
• Distributors should consider reviewing advice files, platform controls, marketing materials and distribution data to determine whether retail clients outside an appropriately defined target market may have received the product or recommendations concerning it.
• Issuers and distributors of comparable private credit products should consider benchmarking TMD descriptions of risk appetite, capital preservation, liquidity and maximum portfolio allocation against ASIC’s concerns in this action and recent private-credit stop orders.
• Compliance teams should consider preserving records of the TMD review, distribution controls, complaints, significant dealings and escalation decisions, and assessing whether changes to the product design, target market or distribution arrangements are necessary under the DDO review framework.

What changed

This is an enforcement intervention rather than a new generally applicable rule. Until the order is revoked or expires, Fidante must not deal in the Class A units, give or distribute a product disclosure statement for the product, or provide general financial product advice to retail clients recommending an investment in it.

Key dates

2021-03-29

The current CFD product intervention order commenced, imposing leverage limits, standardised margin close-out arrangements, negative-balance protection and restrictions on specified inducements.

2022-04-06

ASIC extended the CFD PIO for five years to 23 May 2027.

2027-05-23

The current CFD PIO is due to expire unless it is remade, extended or revoked earlier.

2037-05-23

Indicative end of the proposed further 10-year extension, subject to Ministerial approval and the final instrument's commencement and expiry terms.

2026-11-09 Deadline

Deadline at 5pm AEDT for submissions on the proposed extension, amendments and separate question concerning CFDs over options with losses exceeding the premium.

Suggested considerations

• CFD issuers and distributors should consider mapping all products against the proposed expanded CFD definition, including products settled by cash, set-off or transfer of digital assets.
• Firms should consider testing initial-margin systems so that margin is calculated separately for each CFD and opposing long and short positions cannot reduce the required amount through netting.
• Firms offering CFDs over options should consider classifying contracts by whether retail-client losses are capped at the premium and assessing the effect of the proposed margin methodology on collateral, liquidation and client disclosures.
• Compliance teams may wish to review whether any option-linked CFD could expose a retail client to losses exceeding the premium and prepare evidence for the separate ASIC question on continued retail availability.
• Firms should consider reviewing discounts, rebates, bonuses and educational or research tools against the proposed conditions and assessing whether records can be retained for the proposed seven-year period.
• Product-governance teams may wish to refresh target-market determinations, onboarding controls, leverage settings, margin-close-out logic, negative-balance controls and inducement policies for the proposed extended period.
• Affected stakeholders should consider submitting comments to ASIC by 5pm AEDT on 9 November 2026, particularly on digital-asset settlement, option CFD availability, margin methodology and operational implementation costs.
• Firms should continue complying with the current PIO until any amended instrument takes effect and should plan on the basis that the existing order expires on 23 May 2027 unless remade or otherwise extended.

What changed

The proposed ASIC Corporations (Product Intervention Order Amendment—Contracts for Difference) Instrument 2026/XX would extend the existing CFD PIO until 2037 unless revoked earlier. It would modernise the definition of a CFD to capture products settled by transferring digital assets, replace the term cryptoasset with digital asset, clarify initial-margin rules for CFDs over options, and require initial margin to be calculated separately for each CFD rather than reduced by netting opposing positions.

Key dates

2021-10-31

The insured family lodged the storm-related home insurance claim after roof damage in October 2021.

2022-08-01

A structural engineering assessment occurred approximately eight months after the need for one was identified; the source gives August 2022 but not an exact day.

2022-12-01

After the family complained to Hollard in late 2022, Hollard offered a $1,000 goodwill payment, which was rejected; the source gives only the month and year.

2023-04-01

Hollard made its final claim decision and rejected the claim approximately 15 months after initially accepting it; the source gives April 2023 but not an exact day.

2025-04-01

ASIC commenced Federal Court proceedings alleging breaches of section 13(2A) of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth); the source gives April 2025 but not an exact day.

2026-10-09

The Federal Court ordered Hollard to pay a $2 million civil penalty for breach of the duty of utmost good faith.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review open and recently closed home and property claims for extended periods of inactivity, delayed expert assessments, repeated reassignment, late temporary accommodation and decisions inconsistent with available expert evidence.
• Insurers should consider testing whether claims systems identify deterioration risks, vulnerable customers, habitability issues and requests for emergency accommodation, and whether those matters trigger timely management escalation.
• Firms should consider documenting clear ownership, next actions, decision dates and customer communications throughout the claim, including reasons for any investigation or decision delay.
• Insurers may wish to assess whether rejection decisions are supported by appropriate technical evidence and whether new evidence is properly reconciled with earlier inspections or admissions of cover.
• Claims governance functions should consider reviewing outsourced-provider service levels, escalation controls and management information for aging claims, complaint recurrence, temporary accommodation delays and claims exceeding internal handling targets.
• Legal and compliance teams may wish to map controls against Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth), section 13(2A), and Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), section 912A(1)(a), while considering ASIC's 2024 claims-handling letter, 2025 review findings and 2026 enforcement priority.

What changed

The judgment establishes a binding enforcement precedent that an insurer may incur a civil penalty under section 13(2A) of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) where claims handling falls materially below the duty of utmost good faith. It does not introduce a new statutory claims-handling rule or compliance deadline, but confirms that insurers must handle claims fairly, communicate clearly, progress investigations and decisions without unnecessary delay, and respond appropriately when delay risks further insured loss.

Key dates

2012-06-30

End of the financial year for the LM Managed Performance Fund audit giving rise to the disciplinary proceedings.

2018-12-05

The CADB cancelled Mr Williams’ registration as a company auditor and ordered him to pay ASIC’s costs fixed at $200,000.

2025-06-18

Justice Perry dismissed Mr Williams’ Federal Court application for judicial review of the CADB decision.

2026-10-09

The Full Federal Court dismissed Mr Williams’ appeal, upheld the primary judgment and ordered him to pay the costs of the appeal.

Suggested considerations

• Audit firms should consider reviewing engagement-partner accountability arrangements to ensure that supervision, review and final audit conclusions are documented and cannot be characterized as delegated away.
• Registered auditors should consider testing whether audit files demonstrate adequate work on matters highlighted in the underlying proceedings, including loan and receivable valuation, impairment and recoverability, going concern, related-party loans, management fees, materiality and the basis for the audit opinion.
• Compliance and quality-management teams may wish to assess whether engagement quality reviews and consultations sufficiently challenge significant judgments and unresolved audit deficiencies before the report is signed.
• Firms should consider confirming that use of specialists, junior staff, component auditors or other team members is supported by appropriate direction, supervision, review and documented auditor responsibility.
• Australian audit practices may wish to monitor CADB and Federal Court decisions for further interpretation of the requirement under section 1292 of the Corporations Act 2001 that auditor duties be performed adequately and properly.
• Companies and fund managers may wish to consider whether their auditor oversight processes identify recurring deficiencies in valuation, related-party disclosures, fee recognition, going-concern assessments and audit materiality.

What changed

No new statutory obligation or compliance deadline was introduced. The judgment leaves in place the CADB’s cancellation of Mr Williams’ registration and the earlier findings that his audit of the LM Managed Performance Fund for the year ended 30 June 2012 was not performed adequately and properly. The Full Court confirmed that no legal or jurisdictional error had been established in the CADB’s decision-making and upheld the primary judge’s recognition of the CADB’s specialist expertise, subject to procedural fairness.

Key dates

2026-06-30

The three Funds had $251.8 million in assets under management, according to ASIC’s background information.

2026-10-08

ASIC announced the interim stop order, which took effect to halt offers, issues, sales and transfers under the affected PDSs while the order remains in force.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should review retail private-credit PDSs against Corporations Act 2001 sections 1013C(3), 1013D and 1013F and ASIC Regulatory Guide 168, with particular attention to whether material risks and costs are presented clearly, concisely and effectively.
• Compliance teams may wish to reconcile all stated loan-portfolio and diversification metrics to current underlying data, define the calculation methodology and test whether concentration by property type, geography, borrower, security ranking, loan-to-value ratio and maturity is readily understandable.
• Firms should consider documenting all costs associated with disposing of, redeeming or transferring an interest, including circumstances in which an exit may be delayed, restricted or priced below investor expectations.
• Product issuers may wish to explain the purpose, funding, governance, triggers, permitted uses and limitations of any investor reserve, impairment or capital-loss account, including whether it provides contractual protection or merely represents an internal allocation.
• Distribution teams should consider suspending or reviewing affected marketing, application and transfer processes where a PDS is subject to a stop order, and checking that advisers and platforms are not facilitating prohibited conduct.
• Private-credit fund managers should consider broader reviews of fee structures, margin arrangements, valuation and impairment practices, liquidity, conflicts of interest and retail-client distribution, given the issues identified in independent industry reporting as part of ASIC’s broader 2026 scrutiny of the sector.
• Boards, responsible entities and compliance committees may wish to retain evidence of PDS review, data validation, legal sign-off, escalation and remediation decisions in anticipation of further ASIC surveillance or a final stop-order process.

What changed

The interim stop order applies to the PDSs for the ASCF Premium Capital Fund, ASCF Select Income Fund and ASCF High Yield Fund. While the order remains in force, ASCF cannot offer, issue, sell or transfer interests under those PDSs. This is an enforcement action rather than a sector-wide rule change; however, ASIC’s application of the Corporations Act 2001 PDS and stop-order provisions reinforces that private-credit issuers must explain loan-portfolio composition, diversification metrics, the cost of disposing of an interest and the operation of investor reserve accounts in a sufficiently...

Key dates

2016-06-17

Saad became an authorised representative of Interprac Financial Planning, according to ASIC's background information.

2021-02-01

ASIC alleges the relevant advice period began, during which Saad advised retail clients to roll over superannuation into First Guardian.

2021-12-31

Saad's authorised-representative relationship with Interprac Financial Planning ended, according to ASIC's background information.

2026-10-07

ASIC commenced Federal Court civil penalty proceedings against Osama Saad.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review adviser remuneration, referral, marketing and lead-generation arrangements for direct or indirect benefits linked to product recommendations, including payments made through related entities or third parties.
• Licensees should consider testing whether any benefit could reasonably influence the choice of financial product or advice strategy, and whether the arrangement falls within the conflicted-remuneration prohibitions in Part 7.7A Division 5 of the Corporations Act 2001.
• Advice businesses should consider targeted file reviews involving rollovers from superannuation into high-risk, illiquid or complex products, including assessment of best-interests compliance under section 961B, appropriateness under section 961G and the client-interest priority obligation under section 961J.
• Firms should consider tracing the full economic flow of adviser remuneration, referral fees, marketing funding and related-party payments rather than limiting testing to amounts shown on adviser or licensee invoices.
• Australian financial-services licensees may wish to reassess oversight of authorised representatives, referral partners and externally generated leads, including conflicts registers, product research, statements of advice and evidence supporting the client's circumstances and objectives.
• Relevant businesses should consider reviewing controls against ASIC Regulatory Guide 246, Conflicted and other banned remuneration, and preserving records that demonstrate why payment structures do not circumvent the statutory prohibitions.
• Product issuers and superannuation trustees may wish to review distribution and surveillance data for First Guardian, Shield and comparable products, and consider whether affected clients require remediation or referral to the appropriate complaints process.
• Compliance teams should monitor the Federal Court proceedings and ASIC's broader First Guardian and Shield enforcement program, noting that the allegations are unproven until determined by the Court.

What changed

This is an enforcement action rather than a new rule or amended requirement. ASIC alleges that Atlas Marketing and United Capital received benefits from entities connected with First Guardian and Shield, including payments allegedly used for personal benefit and to fund marketing and lead-generation businesses that referred prospective clients to advice firms.

Key dates

2026-04-30

APRA issued its letter to banks, insurers and superannuation trustees calling for a step-change in governance, risk management, assurance and operational resilience for AI-related risks.

2026-05-08

ASIC issued its open letter to all licensees and market participants urging urgent strengthening of cyber resilience as frontier AI intensifies the global cyber-risk environment.

2026-06-01

ASIC and APRA began the June–July 2026 series of nine industry roundtables on frontier-AI preparedness and resilience; the source identifies June as the starting month but does not provide an exact day.

2026-07-31

ASIC and APRA completed the June–July 2026 roundtable period; the source does not provide an exact closing day.

2026-08-27

ASIC published the joint warning and related information paper and preparedness checklist, urging entities to move from awareness to action.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider presenting the ASIC and APRA roundtable themes, together with the available board and executive preparedness checklist, to the board and relevant risk or technology committees.
• Compliance teams may wish to map frontier-AI cyber and operational risks to existing obligations and controls under APRA CPS 230 Operational Risk Management, APRA CPS 234 Information Security, APRA CPS 220 Risk Management where applicable, and the entity's ASIC licence, governance and cyber-resilience arrangements.
• Firms should consider identifying critical assets, systems, data flows and material third-party dependencies, including common providers and concentration points that could create sector-wide disruption.
• Technology and security teams may wish to test patching, identity and privileged-access controls, attack-surface reduction, backup integrity, recovery-time priorities and incident-response playbooks against AI-accelerated attack scenarios.
• Boards and executives should consider documenting risk appetite, incident escalation authority, recovery priorities, internal and external communication strategies and decision rights before a frontier-AI-related crisis occurs.
• Firms should consider testing response and recovery arrangements under compressed timeframes and retaining evidence of exercise results, lessons learned, remediation owners and completion status.
• Entities using or procuring AI should consider applying existing model, data, supplier, change-management and assurance controls to internally developed models, vendor tools and embedded AI functionality, including defensive-AI tools used for threat intelligence, vulnerability detection, code review or incident response.
• Procurement and outsourcing functions may wish to strengthen supplier assurance, obtain relevant information on providers' AI and cyber controls, map material dependencies and assess substitutability and exit arrangements.

What changed

The regulators have consolidated a cross-sector expectation that entities address frontier-AI risk through cyber fundamentals, critical-asset identification, timely patching, strong identity and access controls, attack-surface reduction, reliable backups, tested response and recovery arrangements, and third-party risk management.

Key dates

2021-09-01

ASIC's investigation into Edwards and associated entities commenced; the publication gives only September 2021 and does not specify a day.

2022-12-13

ASIC executed search warrants at Edwards's business premises and seized materials.

2025-01-22

The remaining court proceeding brought by Edwards that had delayed ASIC's review of seized materials was dismissed by consent.

2025-09-12

ASIC banned Edwards for 10 years under sections 920A and 920B of the Corporations Act 2001 from providing financial services, controlling an entity carrying on a financial services business, or performing functions involved in such a business.

2026-03-25

ASIC commenced NSW Supreme Court winding-up proceedings against the 12 companies and sought appointment of provisional liquidators.

2026-05-28

ASIC's disqualification of Edwards as a self-managed superannuation fund auditor took effect.

2026-08-19

ASIC's interlocutory application for appointment of provisional liquidators was heard before Justice Nixon.

2026-08-21

The NSW Supreme Court appointed Kathryn Evans and Vaughan Strawbridge of FTI Consulting as provisional liquidators of the 12 companies.

Suggested considerations

• Firms with exposure to the 12 companies should consider reviewing receivables, investments, security interests, guarantees, trust relationships and outstanding transactions, and preserving relevant records for engagement with the provisional liquidators.
• Investor-facing firms should consider identifying clients or funds exposed to the companies, suspending any further investor subscriptions or transfers involving the affected entities where legally and operationally appropriate, and assessing communications and complaint-handling requirements.
• Financial services licensees and professional firms that dealt with Edwards or the companies should consider checking the scope of their engagements, referral arrangements, client-money or custody controls, representations made to investors, and potential conflicts or undisclosed related-party transactions.
• Compliance teams may wish to verify that no person acting for the affected companies is relying on Edwards to provide financial services, control a financial services business or perform a function involved in carrying on such a business, given the 10-year prohibition under sections 920A and 920B of the Corporations Act 2001.
• Relevant firms should consider monitoring the NSW Supreme Court proceeding and the provisional liquidators' creditor and investor information portal ahead of the 2 November 2026 directions hearing.
• Persons holding potentially relevant information may wish to consider providing it to ASIC at [email protected] and preserving documents relevant to the ongoing investigation.

What changed

The directors of the 12 companies no longer control their affairs to the extent provided by the Court's orders; the provisional liquidators are responsible for investigating and reporting on the companies' assets, liabilities, asset recoverability, solvency, likely creditor returns, suspected contraventions of the Corporations Act 2001 or ASIC Act 2001, and transactions requiring further investigation.

Key dates

2021-03-01

First Guardian Diversified Class and Growth Class became available to adviser-led members through Netwealth Super Accelerator Plus; the publication gives March 2021 rather than a specific day.

2022-12-01

First Guardian classes were closed to new investments; the publication gives December 2022 rather than a specific day.

2024-05-01

Falcon Capital froze redemptions, leaving approximately 1,080 NSMF members invested with holdings totalling about $100.7 million; the publication gives May 2024 rather than a specific day.

2025-12-17

APRA accepted a court-enforceable undertaking from Netwealth Superannuation Services addressing material weaknesses in its investment governance framework and practices.

2025-12-18

ASIC commenced Federal Court proceedings against Netwealth and accepted a court-enforceable undertaking requiring compensation of affected members.

2026-01-28

Netwealth credited compensation payments to affected members' superannuation accounts; ASIC reported that more than $100 million had been paid to over 1,000 investors in January 2026.

2026-08-20

The Federal Court made declarations that Netwealth contravened the Corporations Act in relation to First Guardian.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider mapping their investment-option onboarding and review processes against sections 912A(1)(a) and 912A(5A) of the Corporations Act 2001, including documenting how the trustee independently validates issuer-provided information.
• Compliance teams may wish to require documented evidence of independent enquiries into strategy, underlying assets, valuation methodology, leverage, related-party exposure, custody, redemption terms, liquidity and operational risks before an option is approved.
• Trustees should consider implementing risk-based ongoing monitoring, watch-list and escalation criteria for complex or high-risk options, with clear triggers for suspension, closure, member notification and review of future investment directions.
• Firms should consider testing whether product disclosure documents, investment menus, member communications and online materials accurately explain potential illiquidity and any limits or conditions affecting withdrawals or redemptions.
• Trustees may wish to review historical investment options that were onboarded between March 2021 and December 2022, or during comparable periods, to identify gaps in due diligence, monitoring, risk disclosure and remediation records.
• Compliance teams should consider preserving approval papers, committee minutes, independent research, issuer correspondence, risk assessments, liquidity analyses and member communications sufficient to demonstrate the basis for each onboarding and monitoring decision.
• Where material weaknesses are identified, firms should consider a documented remediation assessment covering member impact, compensation, disclosure correction, governance uplift and potential notification to ASIC, APRA or AFCA as appropriate.
• Trustees should consider whether their governance framework can evidence alignment with the best financial interests duty and applicable APRA prudential expectations, particularly when adding high-risk investments to a platform.

What changed

The publication records binding Federal Court declarations against Netwealth; it does not introduce a new statutory rule or generally applicable deadline. The relevant conduct was found to breach the Australian financial services licensee obligation in section 912A(1)(a) to do all things necessary to ensure licensed financial services are provided efficiently, honestly and fairly, together with section 912A(5A), in the context of Netwealth's operation of the Netwealth Superannuation Master Fund.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reviewing digital advertising, affiliate, referral and social-media monitoring for deepfake endorsements, unauthorised use of executive or brand identities, fake licence claims and links to cloned investment platforms.
• Compliance teams may wish to test whether the firm’s website address, legal entity name, AFSL number and contact details are consistently displayed and match ASIC’s Professional Registers Search, including any authorised representative relationships.
• Firms should consider implementing or refreshing rapid escalation and takedown processes for impersonation, cloned websites, fraudulent advertisements and misleading investment promotions, with documented evidence of referrals to platforms, banks, ASIC, cyber.gov.au and Scamwatch where appropriate.
• Marketing and distribution controls may wish to require provenance and approval checks for celebrity, influencer, public-figure and AI-generated content, together with surveillance for fabricated reviews, news articles and testimonials.
• Risk and governance functions should consider assessing AI-enabled scam and impersonation scenarios within financial-crime, cyber-risk, operational-resilience and consumer-harm frameworks, including scripted follow-up calls, fake trading dashboards and small initial profit payments used to build trust.
• Firms should consider reviewing customer and counterparty onboarding controls for entities claiming to hold an AFSL, and escalation procedures where an opportunity encourages consumers to bypass licensed professionals or cannot be independently verified.
• Boards or risk committees may wish to receive trend reporting on impersonation incidents, customer complaints, fraudulent domains, takedown requests, losses and control remediation, notwithstanding that this media release itself imposes no new reporting requirement.

What changed

No new rule, mandatory control, reporting obligation or compliance deadline was introduced. ASIC has reinforced its expectation that consumers independently verify Australian Financial Services Licence details against the professional registers, including matching the licence holder’s name and number to the business or opportunity being promoted. The warning also indicates that reliance on search-engine results, polished websites, branding, testimonials, celebrity endorsements or claims of ASIC licensing is insufficient where firms or consumers assess legitimacy.

Key dates

2026-03-01

ASIC surveillance period began

2026-06-30

ASIC surveillance period ended

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether target market determinations are narrowly drafted and contain specific reasoning on how the product fits likely objectives, financial situations, and needs.
• Firms may wish to test whether onboarding questionnaires are genuinely tailored to client circumstances and whether repeated or unlimited retakes create a weak suitability gate.
• Firms may wish to assess whether disclosures clearly explain leverage, time decay, settlement, ownership rights, custody arrangements, transferability, and all material fees or costs.
• Compliance teams may wish to review sign-up incentives, fee-free trading claims, and reward promotions to confirm they do not obscure product risk or encourage impulsive trading.
• Firms may wish to verify that product governance and distribution controls continue after onboarding through monitoring, escalation, and remediation processes.
• Compliance teams may wish to consider whether retail distribution of short-dated ETOs and futures should be restricted or more tightly segmented given ASIC’s statement that these products are unlikely to suit many retail investors.

What changed

This is not a new binding rule; it is a supervisory publication that signals ASIC’s expectations for firms offering complex or high-risk products to retail investors. ASIC says entities should ensure target market determinations are sufficiently specific, onboarding questions are tailored to client circumstances, and disclosures clearly explain the risks, costs, ownership structures, and transfer implications associated with products such as fractional shares, ETOs, and futures.

Key dates

2020-10-20

McPherson’s issued earnings guidance to the market forecasting profit growth, supported by Dr LeWinn purchasing forecasts.

2020-11-12

Court found McPherson’s had sufficient information that sales and purchasing forecasts were materially below expectations and corrective disclosure was required.

2020-11-30

End of the period in which McPherson’s failed to correct the market.

2020-12-01

McPherson’s downgraded and withdrew its earnings guidance; the share price fell 34.5%.

2022-12-09

ASIC commenced civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court against McPherson’s and Mr McAllister.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review escalation processes for sales data, forecast changes, and other information that could undermine published earnings guidance.
• Firms may wish to test whether internal triggers require reassessment of market disclosures when trading updates, channel data, or event results materially diverge from prior assumptions.
• Directors and officers may wish to confirm who is responsible for approving market announcements and whether they have sufficient visibility over information that could make prior statements misleading.
• Listed entities may wish to reassess procedures for correcting or withdrawing guidance promptly after new information emerges, especially where prior statements were repeated in cleansing notices or AGM materials.

What changed

This is an enforcement outcome, not a new rule: the Court held that McPherson’s had a duty to correct the market once it learned, by 2020-11-12, that Dr LeWinn purchasing forecasts and sales results were significantly below expectations and that the October 2020 profit forecast no longer had a reasonable basis. The Court found the company breached continuous disclosure obligations and misled investors by failing to disclose the revised forecasts and by not withdrawing the October 2020 profit forecast between 2020-11-12 and 2020-11-30.