Fund manager Mayfair 101 has sought a special leave application to the High Court of Australia to appeal the decision handed down by the full Federal Court to dismiss the investment house’s appeal against the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s actions towards it.
Specifically, Mayfair appealed to the full court to have the Federal Court’s decision to fine Mayfair 101 $30 million for misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to its advertising of M+ and M Core fixed income notes overturned. On 10 October this appeal was dismissed.
The application to the High Court has been made on the grounds the full Federal Court failed to conduct a proper review when making its decision to dismiss.
As part of the legal action, Mayfair is also challenging the alleged incorrect classification of its investors.
In particular, it was found the manager’s noteholders were no more sophisticated than ordinary consumers despite claims by Mayfair every investor met the definition of ‘sophisticated investor’ under section 761G(4) of the Corporations Act and ‘wholesale investor’ as defined by section 708(8) of the same act.
According to Mayfair managing director James Mawhinney, the appeal to the High Court is being made in an effort to obtain justice for the organisation’s clients.
“This High Court application is crucial for protecting the interests of Mayfair’s noteholders who will otherwise have their returns jeopardised by the $30 million penalty,” Mawhinney said.
The special leave application comes less than a month after Mawhinney appealed the decision to order a retrial of ASIC’s application to ban him from dealing in financial products, after a previous 20-year ban was overturned.
Mayfair’s special leave application was settled by Alan Myers, Bret Walker, Michael Pearce, Aaron Weinstock, Angel Aleksov and Campbell Thomson under the instruction of specialist public interest law firm Roberts Gray Lawyers.
