APRA’s purely documentary case against troubled fund manager IOOF has been dismissed by the Federal Court as “unpersuasive”, “fundamentally inadequate” and “tenuous in the extreme”, in another major blow to financial services regulators pursuing action in the wake of the banking royal commission.
Five IOOF executives will learn their fate this week when a judge rules on a disqualification bid by the prudential regulator, the first judgment to be delivered by a court in a case filed in the wake of last year’s scandal-airing banking royal commission.
A judge has approved a common fund application in a class action against two IAG entities over add-on insurance said to be worth up to $1 billion, saying it was only fair to make all group members pay to fund the litigation.
A judge has removed the funder and law firm leading the Banksia Securities class action from their roles supervising a proposed settlement distribution scheme after the funder was accused of intimidation, a lack of experience and charging excessive costs.
A judge has questioned a common fund application in a class action against two IAG entities over allegedly worthless add-on insurance, saying there may be a “degree of chaos” if the order was approved only to be undone by a pending High Court decision.
Lawyers for IOOF chief financial officer David Coulter have dismissed APRA’s allegations that he breached his superannuation duties as commercially “naïve”, “absolutely desperate” and a “most egregious example” of impulsive regulatory enforcement action.
The former directors of troubled fund manager IOOF have slammed APRA for bringing a “truly hopeless” disqualification case against them, telling a court the prudential regulator’s “Stalinist” approach was deterring “good people and good companies” from participating in the superannuation industry.
APRA has been accused of harbouring an “unhinged hatred” for former IOOF managing director Chris Kelaher by his counsel, who was objecting to internal APRA documents he claims were disparaging of the wealth management company and its executives.
The prudential regulator has opened the first day of its case against IOOF directors and entities by claiming the wealth manager’s liability is “plain as a pike staff”, as IOOF contends the regulator’s case is “artificial and theoretical” and “overly simplistic”.
Former executives of wealth manager IOOF facing disqualification proceedings by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority have criticised the prudential regulator for a late and extensive discovery request, saying it could “imperil” the July trial date.