The Australian investment funds market is highly developed, both from a regulatory and commercial perspective. Australia is a jurisdiction that is welcoming to retail and alternative fund strategies and managers.
There has still been a significant flow of transactional and regulatory matters following initially restrained activity during the COVID-19 pandemic, and this is anticipated to grow in the year ahead.
The most commonly used structure is a unit trust, due to its flexibility.
For private equity and venture capital funds, a unit trust or a limited partnership, usually in the form of a venture capital limited partnership (VCLP) or early-stage venture capital limited partnership (ESVCLP) (in certain circumstances), can be used.
A unit trust is simpler to establish and offers greater flexibility with respect to the asset classes in which it can invest; however, certain limited partnerships can attract tax benefits for investors and fund managers, when certain requirements are met.
For hedge and credit strategies, a unit trust is the only suitable local structure.
Following recent legislative changes, it is possible to establish corporate collective investment vehicles (CCIVs) which can be used as investment vehicles for a variety of asset classes.
A regulated Australian unit trust will require registration with the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC). Such unit trusts are known as registered managed investment schemes. Once ASIC receives an application, it must make a decision on registration within 14 days. Key approval criteria are that:
The key required documentation is a constitution/trust deed. An investment management agreement is also typically required, by which the trustee outsources investment management to a manager entity.
The setting-up process is not lengthy and costs are reasonable. Establishment of a registered managed investment scheme and registration with ASIC can take place within three to four weeks.
An unregistered unit trust can be established within one to two weeks.
The above timings assume a simple structure and that relevant licensing arrangements are previously in place.
VCLPs and ESVCLPs are incorporated limited partnerships established under state-based legislation. They are bodies corporate and need to be registered with relevant state regulatory bodies. In addition, these entities require registration with Innovation and Science Australia under the Venture Capital Act 2006 (Cth) (the “VC Act”). Due to legislative requirements, the general partner of the VCLPs and ESVCLPs must also be an incorporated limited partnership (VCMP). The general partner of that VCMP is generally a company.
The benefit of registering VCLPs and ESVCLPs is primarily the manner in which investment proceeds are taxed for both the general partner and the limited partners. Managers of each of these vehicles are required to either hold an AFSL, be an authorised representative of an AFSL holder, or have the benefit of a relevant exemption. Key documents for partnerships are a partnership agreement, subscription agreement, management agreement and any side letters. A partnership agreement for the VCMP is also required.
Incorporation of a limited partnership can occur in approximately two business days with modest registration fees. Registration of a VCLP or ESVCLP can be conditional or unconditional depending on whether all registration conditions have been met. Following receipt of a complete application, Innovation and Science Australia must typically make a decision in respect of registration under the VC Act within 60 days.
A significant work stream to be undertaken on fund inception is the relevant “carry” vehicles and rules applicable for the carry participants.
The trust deed for most unit trusts includes what is, in effect, a contractual limitation of liability of investors. The effectiveness of such limitations has broad commercial acceptance. Despite such acceptance, the question of the legal effectiveness of such limitations has not been settled across Australia’s states and territories.
In relation to limited partnership structures, as a general rule, an investor’s liability is limited to their capital committed to the investment vehicle. Typically, if there is a tax impost relating to an investor’s commitment, the investor must fund that impost.
A fundamental disclosure requirement is that communications to investors cannot be misleading or deceptive, including by omission.
Where retail investors are being issued with interests in a fund, the product disclosure statement (PDS) must comply with statutory disclosure rules, including detailed costs disclosure. The issuer of the product has continuous disclosure obligations.
Institutional investors from Australia and offshore frequently invest in alternative funds. Most major Australian institutional investors have an allocation for private equity funds. Venture capital investment in Australia is mostly high net worth and family office led, though some institutions have a venture capital allocation.
Unit Trusts
In Australia, unit trusts can be structured as open- or closed-end vehicles, where performance fees can take the form of a traditional performance fee on net asset value increase or a private equity-style “carry waterfall”.
There are very few legal requirements that apply to Australian unit trusts, which are simple to establish and, provided they are only offered to wholesale investors, often have no regulatory or other registration or approval requirements (note that there would typically be regulatory requirements for the manager or trustee; see 2.3 Regulatory Environment).
A unit trust is managed by its trustee, who may, in practice, appoint an investment manager to provide investment management services in respect of the trust. The use of corporate trustees is common by fund managers who do not desire to manage the day-to-day administration of their own trust or who may lack the necessary regulatory licence to act as a trustee.
Partnerships
The common partnership structures used by a private equity or venture capital fund to invest primarily in Australian businesses are known as VCLPs for private equity and venture capital funds or ESVCLPs for early-stage venture capital funds.
Overview of VCLPs and ESVCLPs
An incorporated limited partnership must meet specific requirements before it can be registered as a VCLP or an ESVCLP with Industry Innovation and Science Australia, an Australian government department. There are specific requirements for a VCLP and an ESVCLP set out in the VC Act, with many consistencies between the two, including:
An EVCI is an equity investment in an unlisted company or unlisted trust that is located in Australia, does not exceed more than 30% of the partnership’s committed capital and that has a predominant activity that is not an ineligible activity. An ineligible activity includes:
For an investment to qualify as an EVCI, the investment must not exceed the value restriction imposed at the time of the investment (ie, AUD50 million for an investment by an ESVCLP and AUD250 million for an investment by a VCLP).
In addition to the requirements for registration, the VC Act applies various restrictions to these structures:
Given the strict requirements and restrictions imposed on VCLPs and ESVCLPs, many fund managers establish these vehicles together with parallel funds (usually soft stapled-unit trusts). This structure allows fund managers to obtain the tax benefits afforded to VCLPs and ESVCLPs in respect of investments that are EVCIs, while providing the fund manager the flexibility to invest in non-EVCIs via the parallel funds. This has been a common strategy for leading Australian private equity and venture capital funds.
CCIVs
Recent amendments to the Corporations Act have facilitated the emergence of a new fund vehicle – the CCIV. This vehicle is a company limited by shares, which must consist of one or more “sub-funds”. While the CCIV itself is a legal entity, sub-funds are not separate legal entities. Each share in a CCIV must be referable to a single sub-fund and the assets of the CCIV must be allocated to a particular sub-fund in an allocation register. The Corporations Act provides that the assets of one sub-fund are not available to satisfy the liabilities of another sub-fund.
CCIVs can be structured as open ended or closed ended and are suitable for retail or wholesale clients. A retail CCIV is subject to specific rules broadly similar to registered managed investment schemes. A CCIV must be designated as retail or wholesale, though under certain circumstances a CCIV will be required to register as a retail CCIV.
A CCIV is managed by a “corporate director” which must be a public company with an AFSL authorisation to “operate the business and conduct the affairs of a CCIV” for retail or wholesale CCIVs (as applicable) holding the relevant type of assets. A CCIV and each sub-fund is established on registration with ASIC and is governed by that CCIV’s constitution.
Australia has a highly developed and continually evolving regulatory regime in relation to investments from offshore into Australia.
In summary, the Treasurer of Australia, acting through the Foreign Investments Review Board (FIRB), can block foreign direct investment that is “contrary to Australia’s national interest” if clearance is required.
Changes to the rules applied by FIRB from 1 January 2021 also give the Treasurer “call-in powers” and “last-resort powers”, by which the Treasurer may “call in” investments not notified to FIRB for review and in exceptional circumstances may exercise “last-resort powers” to impose conditions, vary existing conditions or require divestment of approved investments where national security risks emerge. In addition, a new set of rules applies for screening national security businesses, which include:
The critical infrastructure rules and FIRB’s guidance also outline some specific entities (eg, Australia’s big supermarkets, banks, insurers and superannuation funds) as critical infrastructure assets.
Entities managing alternative funds should hold an AFSL with appropriate authorisations, be appointed as the authorised representative of the holder of an AFSL or fall within a relevant licensing exemption under the Corporations Act. Where the fund is a unit trust, the trustee and the manager should have the appropriate authorisations in respect of managing, and issuing, interests in a managed investment scheme. Where a foreign manager wishes to offer interests in an Australian fund, it is common to appoint a corporate trustee as the trustee of the fund, who would appoint the manager as the investment manager of the fund (see 2.3.3 Local Regulatory Requirements for Non-local Managers regarding regulation of the manager).
From a regulatory perspective, alternative funds open to only wholesale clients operate with relative freedom.
There are very few limitations applying to alternative funds. Significantly for private equity funds, there are adverse tax implications if a trust were to control a business such that it would be designated a “trading trust”. In such a case, the trust would potentially not be eligible to qualify as a managed investment trust and could potentially be treated like a company (where the trust is widely held). The concept of “control” is widely interpreted for Australian income tax purposes.
In certain circumstances, including where 20% of the interests in an Australian fund are held by a foreign entity or 40% of the interests in aggregate in an Australian fund are held by foreign entities and their associates, approval may be required by FIRB in respect of the investments of such fund.
Please see 2.3.3 Local Regulatory Requirements for Non-local Managers.
Non-local providers of financial services, including investment managers, have two main options to provide financial services to Australian wholesale clients, in addition to the option of holding a full AFSL:
Foreign AFSL
The foreign financial services providers (FFSPs) framework is under review. A new regime was initially proposed to take full effect on 1 April 2022, but has been delayed until 1 April 2024. The Australian federal government (the “Federal Government”) consulted on a new direction for the regime in 2021 and introduced a bill in February 2022. However, when the Federal Government called an election in May 2022, the bill, containing proposed new exemptions, lapsed.
As a result, the current licensing arrangements for FFSPs remain in a transitional period. See The New Foreign Financial Service Providers (FFSP) Regime in 4.1 Recent Developments and Proposals for Reform for further information.
ASIC has announced it will pause assessment of “foreign AFS licence” applications already lodged by FFSPs, unless specifically requested to proceed by the applicant. FFSPs that have been or are granted a foreign AFS licence will be able to continue to operate under the licence issued by ASIC, noting the Federal Government’s consultation is ongoing at the time of writing.
A foreign AFS licence allows FFSPs that are from jurisdictions that are regulated in a “sufficiently equivalent jurisdiction to Australia” to apply for a foreign AFS licence so they can provide a range of financial services to Australian wholesale clients, whether from inside or outside Australia.
This is similar to the former passport relief that was previously available to FFSPs regulated by the FCA (UK), SEC (US) (and certain other US regulators), MAS (Singapore), SFC (Hong Kong), BaFin (Germany) and CSSF (Luxembourg).
To be eligible to apply for a foreign AFS licence, FFSPs must satisfy a number of conditions. Most importantly, they must be regulated under an overseas regulatory regime that has been assessed by ASIC as “sufficiently equivalent” to Australia’s regime. This includes not only those listed above but also those regulated by the Danish FSA, the Swedish FI, the French AMF or ARPR, or the Ontario Securities Commission (subject to holding relevant authorisations).
Foreign AFS licensees do not need to comply with all the obligations of normal AFS licensees, but they do have a broader range of obligations than FFSPs relying on other forms of relief.
A regulated fund (typically, an Australian unit trust) is known as a registered managed investment scheme, meaning that it is registered with ASIC. The registration process is relatively straightforward and only requires that:
Once an application for registration is received by ASIC, a decision on registration must be made within 14 days.
As previously noted, incorporation of a limited partnership can occur within approximately two business days. Registration of VCLPs and ESVCLPs can take as little as one month, assuming all required documents have been prepared. Registration fees are modest.
In Australia, pre-marketing of alternative funds, like marketing of alternative funds, may involve the provision of financial services in Australia, for which an AFSL will be required, subject to applicable exemptions.
Please refer to 2.3.3 Local Regulatory Requirements for Non-local Managers, 2.3.6 Rules Concerning Marketing of Alternative Funds and 2.3.7 Marketing of Alternative Funds.
Marketing an alternative fund may involve the provision of financial services in Australia, for which an AFSL will be required, subject to applicable exemptions.
Non-local providers of financial services should refer to 2.3.3 Local Regulatory Requirements for Non-local Managers.
Alternative funds can be marketed in Australia, as long as the person marketing the fund is authorised under an AFSL (or an exemption – see 2.3.3 Local Regulatory Requirements for Non-local Managers) to provide financial product advice, or to deal in the relevant fund interests to the relevant client group. Typically, these funds would be marketed to wholesale clients only.
If the person is not authorised to provide these services to retail clients, then marketing activities must be limited to wholesale clients. In addition, where the fund is marketed to retail clients, it would usually need to be registered with ASIC as a “registered managed investment scheme” (see 2.3.4 Regulatory Approval Process) and comply with regulated disclosure requirements (see 3.3.1 Regulatory Regime) and associated rules applying to regulated products.
In Australia, marketing of alternative funds may involve the provision of financial services in Australia, for which an AFSL will be required, subject to applicable exemptions. In these circumstances, depending on whether an AFSL will be required or whether an exemption is available, some form of prior authorisation or notification may be required to be made to ASIC.
For example, if it is determined that an AFSL is required, an application for an AFSL will need to made to ASIC prior to any marketing activities taking place.
Alternatively, if it is determined that an exemption is available, then depending on the exemption, prior notification to ASIC may be required.
Please refer to 2.3.3 Local Regulatory Requirements for Non-local Managers.
Once an alternative fund has been marketed to investors in Australia, there may be certain ongoing requirements that need to be considered.
Certain activities in relation to the alternative fund, for example, issuing interests in the alternative fund to investors in Australia and providing reporting and information to such investors, may involve the provision of a financial service in Australia. In these circumstances, the fund operator may require an AFSL or be able to rely on an exemption.
If an AFSL is obtained, the licensed entity will be subject to ongoing statutory duties and obligations including, for example, obligations to provide their services efficiently, honestly and fairly, to manage conflicts of interest, and to report “reportable situations” to ASIC.
Alternatively, if a relevant exemption was being relied upon, the conditions of that exemption would need to be complied with on an ongoing basis. For example, the sufficient equivalence relief includes certain reporting requirements to ASIC.
Please refer to 2.3.3 Local Regulatory Requirements for Non-local Managers.
Investor protection rules in relation to financial services provided to wholesale clients are primarily focused upon compliance with the conditions applicable in relation to the AFSL under which the relevant financial service is being provided. This includes compliance with relevant provisions of the Corporations Act, including restrictions on misleading and deceptive conduct.
Investor protection rules in relation to financial services provided to retail clients include compliance with the matters noted immediately above, and additional rules designed to protect retail clients, including membership of an alternative dispute resolution system, and more detailed and prescriptive product disclosure rules.
Since October 2021, persons issuing and distributing financial products to retail clients have been subject to provisions of the Corporations Act known as the financial product “design and distribution obligations” (DDO). This has been a significant focus of the industry in recent times.
Under the new obligations, to ensure that their products are designed and distributed appropriately, issuers are required to make a target market determination (TMD) for each product that identifies, among other things, the intended class of consumers. They are then required to take “reasonable steps” that will (or are reasonably likely to) result in the financial product being distributed in a manner that is consistent with the TMD. Issuers are obliged to conduct reviews of the TMD periodically and keep certain records, and where there are significant dealings in the financial product that are inconsistent with the TMD, issuers are required to notify ASIC.
Distributors are also subject to certain obligations under the DDO; specifically, not to engage in retail product distribution unless they reasonably believe a TMD has been made or is not required to be made, to take “reasonable steps” that will (or are reasonably likely to) result in distribution being consistent with the TMD, to notify the issuer of significant dealings that are inconsistent with the TMD and to keep certain records.
ASIC, as the non-prudential regulator of the Australian financial services (AFS) industry, plays an active role. It conducts surveillance and enforcement of the industry and facilitates regulatory development and implementation.
ASIC’s position on a range of regulatory matters is publicised via the ASIC website and through other communication channels. Documents issued by ASIC include regulatory guides, information sheets and media releases.
Meetings between industry participants and ASIC take place from time to time, in a variety of contexts.
The key restriction applicable in relation to the operation of an alternative investment fund is licensing. Each entity involved in the operation of the fund must hold, or be authorised under, a relevant AFSL, or be subject to, or validly rely on, an applicable exemption.
As previously noted, there are very few limitations applying to alternative funds. Significantly for private equity funds, there are adverse tax implications if a trust were to control a business such that it would be designated a “trading trust”. In such a case, the trust would potentially not be eligible to qualify as a managed investment trust and potentially could be treated like a company (where the trust is widely held). The concept of “control” is currently widely interpreted for Australian income tax purposes.
Provided the trustee of the fund is appropriately authorised under its AFSL, there is no legal requirement for a depository or a custodian to be appointed to hold its fund assets.
Specific operational requirements for AFSL holders include:
ASIC has issued guidance in relation to compliance with these obligations and there are various practical ways in which AFSL holders may satisfy the obligations.
The fund finance market in Australia is highly developed.
Restrictions on borrowings may arise due to the agreements that the fund equity holders have in place between themselves, or as a function of the constituent documents of the fund. In addition, financier-imposed borrowing restrictions and covenants will be relevant.
It is common for financiers to take security for finance provided, including mortgages, in relation to property and infrastructure funds.
In relation to limited partnership structures, private equity managers often utilise capital call facilities, which are secured by the unpaid capital commitments of the investors to the investment vehicle, rather than the assets of the vehicle.
Certain large, institutional-grade investors do not support the use of capital call facilities.
There are limited examples of funds raising debt via bond markets, which typically takes place offshore.
Taxation of a Trust
Typically, the income and gains of a trust are subject to flow-through tax treatment (ie, taxable income of a trust is taxed at the hands of the investors) and, therefore, investors are taxed directly on their pro rata share of the income of the trust and gains arising from the disposal of any investment of the trust.
In order to qualify as a “managed investment trust”, broadly, the trust:
Where the trust qualifies and elects to be a “managed investment trust”:
Further detail is provided in 3.6 Tax Regime.
Taxation of a VCLP or an ESVCLP
A VCLP or an ESVCLP provides fund managers and investors with support to help stimulate venture capital investments by way of tax benefits.
For a VCLP, the key Australian tax implications include:
For an ESVCLP, the key Australian tax implications include:
Generally, a resident trust should be able to qualify for the benefits of a double tax treaty between Australia and a foreign jurisdiction. However, this should be considered on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis.
CCIVs
The new CCIV structure has been designed to provide tax treatment that aligns with the existing tax treatment of Attribution Managed Investment Trusts (AMITs). Investors in a CCIV sub-fund will receive the same tax treatment as those in an AMIT, including “flow-through” tax treatment.
Unit Trust
The most commonly used structure for retail funds in Australia is a unit trust. Each unit entitles the unit holder (ie, the investor) to a beneficial interest in the trust property as a whole, but not in any particular asset comprising the trust property.
The trustee (which in the context of retail funds is referred to as a responsible entity) is responsible for the operation and management of the unit trust. As retail funds are regulated in Australia, the Corporations Act requires that the responsible entity be an Australian public company that holds an AFSL. For this reason, offshore managers looking to establish an Australian retail fund will often use the services of a local responsible entity for hire to act as responsible entity of the fund, as opposed to establishing their own responsible entity in Australia.
The responsible entity may then appoint an investment manager to manage the assets of the fund. The investment manager can be an offshore entity or could be a locally established (usually an Australian proprietary company limited by shares) subsidiary of an offshore manager. The investment manager, regardless of whether it is locally established or offshore, would generally need to obtain an AFSL, a foreign AFSL (if available) or be able to rely on a relevant exemption. Please see 3.3.3 Local Regulatory Requirements for Non-local Managers for further discussion regarding the local regulatory requirements for offshore managers.
Key Advantages and Disadvantages of Unit Trusts
The key advantages of unit trusts include the following.
The perceived disadvantages of unit trusts include the following.
CCIVs
Recent amendments to the Corporations Act have facilitated the emergence of an alternative fund vehicle to the unit trust, namely the CCIV. Please refer to 2.2.2 Legal Structures Used by Fund Managers for further information.
Registration Requirement
A retail fund in Australia will generally be required to be registered with ASIC as a managed investment scheme in accordance with Chapter 5C of the Corporations Act, unless all investors are wholesale clients. Wholesale clients include:
Investors that do not satisfy one of the wholesale client tests are considered retail clients.
CCIVs and their sub-funds are also subject to a registration requirement under the Corporations Act, although the registration requirement applies to both retail and wholesale CCIVs.
Process and Documentation Required
To register a fund with ASIC, the responsible entity must lodge the following documentation with ASIC:
Once an application for registration has been lodged with ASIC, ASIC has a statutory 14-day period to consider the application and register the fund or reject the application. During the 14-day registration period, ASIC will generally respond with queries and comments in relation to the constitution and compliance plan.
Despite the prescribed requirements for constitutions and compliance plans, the cost of preparing and lodging these documents with ASIC for registration is reasonable.
The registration process and documentation for a CCIV and its sub-funds is similar and includes lodgement of the CCIV’s constitution and, in the case of a CCIV offered to retail clients, the compliance plan.
The trust deed for most unit trusts includes what is, in effect, a contractual limitation of liability of investors. The effectiveness of such limitations has broad commercial acceptance. Despite such acceptance, the question of the legal effectiveness of such limitations has not been settled across Australia’s states and territories.
CCIVs take the form of a company limited by shares, which means that the liability of each investor is limited to the value of their shares.
Product Disclosure Statement
The offer of interests in an Australian retail fund to retail investors will generally require a PDS (ie, a regulated offer document), except in certain limited circumstances. The PDS will need to comply with the prescribed content requirements in the Corporations Act and relevant ASIC guidance and include disclosure regarding the benefits, risks and fees associated with the fund.
Confirmations
As the issuer of the Australian retail fund, the responsible entity (or corporate director in the case of a CCIV) will have an obligation to provide retail clients with certain confirmation statements. Broadly, these are provided in relation to transactions where a retail client acquires interests in the fund or redeems some or all of their interests in the fund.
Ongoing and Continuous Disclosure Requirements
The issuer of an Australian retail fund will also have continuous disclosure requirements with which they must comply under the Corporations Act. Broadly, these obligations require the issuer to disclose material changes, significant events and information that is not generally available and that a reasonable person would expect to have a material effect on the price or value of the interests in the fund (that is, influence persons who commonly invest in units in deciding whether to acquire or dispose of the interests).
Periodic Reporting
The issuer will have certain periodic disclosure requirements where the Australian retail fund is issued to retail clients. This generally involves providing retail clients with an annual periodic report detailing certain matters concerning their investment (for example, opening and closing balances, details of transactions during the reporting period and the return on investment).
Breach Reporting
In addition to the above disclosure and reporting requirements, the responsible entity or corporate director, as the holder of an AFSL, will also have an obligation to notify ASIC of certain breaches or likely breaches of its obligations under the Corporations Act and relevant financial services laws.
Certain changes to the breach reporting requirements commenced in October 2021. Please see 4.1 Recent Developments and Proposals for Reform for further discussion in relation to this.
Investor demand in the Australian retail funds market continues to grow, with approximately AUD477 billion total funds under management as of the end of September 2022 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, Managed Funds, Australian, September 2022).
The size and steady growth of the market is largely underpinned by the compulsory superannuation contribution system in Australia that was introduced in the early 1990s.
Retail fund managers established in Australia are themselves typically structured as Australian proprietary companies limited by shares. However, fund managers’ internal structures often provide that the Australian management entity may contract with other internal entities for the provision of investment management services to mitigate tax and legal exposure.
There are no restrictions on the types of investors that may, or are eligible to, invest in an Australian retail fund that is a registered managed investment scheme. Therefore, retail clients and wholesale clients could invest in an Australian retail fund. Please see 3.1.2 Common Process for Setting Up Investment Funds for further discussion on the definitions of “retail client” and “wholesale client”.
The regulatory regime governing Australian retail funds includes three key areas, namely: registration, disclosure and licensing requirements.
Registration
A retail fund in Australia will generally be required to be registered with ASIC as a managed investment scheme in accordance with Chapter 5C of the Corporations Act. A CCIV is also subject to registration requirements. Please see 3.1.2 Common Process for Setting Up Investment Funds for further discussion regarding the process and documentation involved in applying for registration with ASIC.
As a registered managed investment scheme, the fund will be governed by the provisions in Chapter 5C of the Corporations Act together with the fund constitution. Under Chapter 5C of the Corporations Act, the responsible entity and its officers will have certain statutory duties, including duties to act honestly, exercise care and diligence, and act in the best interests of members. Chapter 5C of the Corporations Act also governs the process by which a responsible entity may retire and be appointed as responsible entity of the fund.
CCIVs are subject to similar requirements under Chapter 8B of the Corporations Act.
Notably, an Australian retail fund is not subject to any investment limitations or restrictions under the Corporations Act (although the introduction of the DDO in October 2021 means that some Australian retail funds will need to restrict the scope of their investments – please see 4.1 Recent Developments and Proposals for Reform). Rather, the scope of investments and permitted assets is governed by, and documented in, the constitution and associated disclosure documentation.
Disclosure
The offer of units in an Australian retail fund to retail investors will generally require a PDS (ie, a regulated offer document), except in certain limited circumstances. The PDS will need to comply with the prescribed content requirements in the Corporations Act and relevant ASIC guidance, and include disclosure regarding the benefits, risks and fees associated with the fund. Please see 3.1.4 Disclosure Requirements for further discussion regarding PDSs.
Licensing
The Corporations Act requires a person, regardless of whether they are local or from offshore, who “carries on a financial services business in Australia” to hold an AFSL covering the provision of such services, unless an exemption applies. A person provides a financial service if, among other things, the person provides financial product advice, deals in a financial product or operates a registered managed investment scheme. For these purposes, a unit in an Australian retail fund that is a registered managed investment scheme will be a financial product.
The responsible entity or corporate director of an Australian retail fund is required to hold an AFSL. The investment manager would also generally hold an AFSL or rely on an available exemption in order to provide these financial services.
As discussed in 3.3.1 Regulatory Regime, the Corporations Act requires a person, regardless of whether they are local or from offshore, who “carries on a financial services business in Australia” to hold an AFSL covering the provision of such services, unless an exemption applies. Depending on the scope and structure of the provision of the relevant services, a non-local service provider may need an AFSL or be able to rely on an exemption in order to provide their services to an Australian retail fund.
Australian Licensing Options
If a non-local service provider is deemed to be carrying on a financial services business in Australia, it will either need to obtain an AFSL, apply for a foreign AFSL (if available) or consider if there are any available exemptions. Please see 2.3.3 Local Regulatory Requirements for Non-local Managers and 4.1 Recent Developments and Proposals for Reform for further discussion.
Authorised Representative Exemption
An alternative exemption available is for a person to be appointed as an authorised representative of a holder of an AFSL. This effectively enables the non-local service provider to provide the same financial services as the AFSL holder, and the AFSL holder will be responsible for the provision of the relevant financial services by the non-local service provider.
AFSL
If a non-local service provider is not able to rely upon a suitable exemption or does not qualify for the foreign AFSL regime, then the non-local service provider will likely need to apply for an AFSL.
Registration as a Foreign Company
Additionally, to the extent that a foreign company, itself or through its agents, is carrying on business in Australia, Australian law will require that company to be registered with ASIC as a foreign company in Australia.
Similar to in 3.3.2 Requirements for Non-local Service Providers, any non-local manager that provides financial services in Australia would either need to hold an AFSL, a foreign AFSL (if available) or seek to rely on an alternative exemption, depending on the scope of the services and the category of clients to whom those services are provided.
Where a non-local manager manages an Australian retail fund, particular consideration will need to be given as to whom the services are provided.
If the non-local manager provides financial services directly to retail clients in Australia, it would likely be required to obtain an AFSL or be appointed as an authorised representative to cover the provisions of these services to retail clients.
For more information on the key licensing options/exemptions that may be available, please see 3.3.2 Requirements for Non-local Service Providers.
Applying for Registration
As discussed in 3.3.1 Regulatory Regime, the regulatory approval process for an Australian retail fund is relatively straightforward. Once the requisite documentation has been prepared (ie, the fund constitution and compliance plan), these are lodged with ASIC for its consideration. In the case of a registered managed investment scheme, ASIC then has a statutory 14-day period to consider the application and register the fund or reject the application. During the 14-day registration period, ASIC will generally respond with queries and comments in relation to the constitution and compliance plan.
Applying for an AFSL or Foreign AFSL
As discussed in 3.3.2 Requirements for Non-local Service Providers, separate to registering the fund with ASIC, depending on the structure and scope of services to be provided in relation to the fund, an AFSL or foreign AFSL (if available) may be required for the investment manager and will be required for the responsible entity or corporate director. The process of applying for an AFSL or foreign AFSL can be relatively lengthy and involves preparing a number of documents to be submitted to ASIC. The time to prepare an application, lodge it with ASIC and obtain the AFSL or foreign AFSL can take six to eight months or more.
In Australia, pre-marketing of retail funds, as with marketing of retail funds, will likely involve the provision of financial services in Australia, for which an AFSL will be required, subject to applicable exemptions.
Please refer to 3.3.2 Requirements for Non-local Service Providers, 3.3.3 Local Regulatory Requirements for Non-local Managers, 3.3.6 Rules Concerning Marketing of Retail Funds and 3.3.7 Marketing of Retail Funds.
Similar to the discussion in 3.3.2 Requirements for Non-local Service Providers and 3.3.3 Local Regulatory Requirements for Non-local Managers, an entity, whether local or offshore, that is involved in, or engages in, the marketing of an Australian retail fund to Australian clients (whether retail clients or wholesale clients) will need to consider its Australian licensing options. This is because the activity of marketing the fund will likely involve the provision of financial services (in particular, financial product advice and also potentially dealing or arranging for dealing in financial products).
The Corporations Act does not impose any restrictions on the types of investors that an Australian retail fund may be marketed to. Therefore, an Australian retail fund that is registered as a managed investment scheme may be marketed to any person in Australia, provided the entity marketing the fund holds an appropriate AFSL, a foreign AFSL (if available) or is able to rely on an available exemption that authorises it to provide the relevant financial services in relation to retail clients and wholesale clients.
The recent introduction of the DDO in October 2021 means that some Australian retail funds must ensure their marketing activities comply with the new obligations. Please see 4.1 Recent Developments and Proposals for Reform for further discussion.
In Australia, marketing of retail funds may involve the provision of financial services in Australia, for which an AFSL will be required, subject to applicable exemptions. In these circumstances, depending on whether an AFSL will be required or whether an exemption is available, some form of prior authorisation or notification may be required to be made to ASIC.
For example, if it is determined that an AFSL is required, an application for an AFSL will need to made to ASIC prior to any marketing activities taking place.
Alternatively, if it is determined that an exemption is available, then depending on the exemption, prior notification to ASIC may be required.
Please refer to 3.3.3 Local Regulatory Requirements for Non-local Managers.
Once a retail fund has been marketed to investors in Australia, there may be certain ongoing requirements that need to be considered.
Certain activities in relation to the retail fund, for example, issuing interests in the retail fund to investors in Australia and providing reporting and information to such investors, may involve the provision of a financial service in Australia. In these circumstances, the fund operator may require an AFSL or be able to rely on an exemption.
If an AFSL is obtained, the licensed entity will be subject to ongoing statutory duties and obligations including, for example, obligations to provide their services efficiently, honestly and fairly, to manage conflicts of interest, and to report “reportable situations” to ASIC.
Alternatively, if a relevant exemption was being relied upon, the conditions of that exemption would need to be complied with on an ongoing basis. For example, the sufficient equivalence relief includes certain reporting requirements to ASIC.
Please refer to 3.3.3 Local Regulatory Requirements for Non-local Managers.
Investor protection rules in relation to financial services provided to a retail client in an Australian retail fund are primarily focused upon compliance with the conditions applicable to the AFSL under which the relevant financial service is being provided. This includes compliance with the Corporations Act, which includes prohibitions on unconscionable conduct and engaging in misleading, deceptive or dishonest conduct.
The investor protection rules also include provisions designed to protect retail clients. In addition to the prescribed product disclosure requirements discussed in 3.1.4 Disclosure Requirements, these include obligations regarding dispute resolution systems, compensation and breaches of PDS obligations.
In addition to the above, the new DDO regime applies to product issuers and distributors. Please see 4.1 Recent Developments and Proposals for Reform for further discussion.
The provision of financial services in Australia is regulated and licensed by ASIC, which is an independent Australian government body that is established and administered under the Australian Securities and Investments Commissions Act 2001 (Cth) (the “ASIC Act”).
ASIC’s relationship with entities that are licensed or providing financial services in Australia is generally of an ad hoc nature, as opposed to an ongoing one, and usually arises in the context of specific circumstances or matters (for example, in response to lodgement of a breach report). While entities will generally not be assigned a designated officer for their relationship with the regulator, depending on the circumstances, it is often possible to reach out to ASIC to discuss or obtain feedback on certain matters.
There are a number of operational requirements that should be considered in the context of an Australian retail fund.
Obligations as a Responsible Entity of an Australian Retail Fund
An Australian retail fund that is structured as a registered managed investment scheme must be operated by its responsible entity in accordance with its constitution, compliance plan and the provisions of the Corporations Act. While the Corporations Act does not prescribe the types of assets that may be held by, or the types of investors that may invest in, an Australian retail fund, as discussed in 3.1.2 Common Process for Setting Up Investment Funds, the Corporations Act does prescribe certain matters to be addressed in the content of the constitution and compliance plan. ASIC provides additional guidance in relation to these matters.
From an operational perspective, some of the key considerations will include:
Similar to a registered managed investment scheme, a retail CCIV must be operated by its corporate director in accordance with its constitution, compliance plan and the provisions of the Corporations Act.
Obligations as an AFSL Holder
As an AFSL holder, the responsible entity or corporate director of the Australian retail fund will be required to comply with obligations regarding management of conflicts, availability of adequate resources, training of representatives, risk management and dispute resolution.
ASIC provides guidance in relation to compliance with each of these requirements that should be considered when developing relevant policies and procedures to address these matters.
Other Operational Considerations
Other operational obligations and requirements that will need to be considered include anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing, insider dealing and market abuse, short selling and derivatives transaction reporting.
There continues to be strong growth and competition in the Australian fund financing market, providing greater accessibility to retail funds looking to borrow or leverage their portfolio. The Australian domestic banks tend to be the key players; however, offshore commercial banks and investment banks are becoming increasingly active in the fund financing market.
The facilities are usually provided on a bilateral basis, as opposed to a syndicated basis, and the lender will take some form of security (for example, over the assets of the fund or in the form of a guarantee). The fund financing documentation will also often impose certain limitations and restrictions on the use of the borrowings.
In terms of the fund documentation itself, a key consideration will be to ensure that the constitution of the fund permits the responsible entity to borrow and grant security over the assets of the fund.
Overview of Tax Regime
The tax regime applying to Australian retail funds structured as a unit trust is comprehensive and complex, and should be carefully considered when establishing a fund in Australia. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is responsible for administering the federal tax laws in Australia.
Typically, the income and gains of a trust are subject to flow-through tax treatment, which means that the taxable income of a trust is taxed in the hands of the investors, and not the trust itself. Therefore, investors are taxed directly on their pro rata share of the income of the trust, gains arising from the disposal of any investment of the trust and any disposal of their interests in the trust.
For Australian income tax purposes, different kinds of investors are subject to different taxation principles and taxation rates; for example, corporates are taxed at the corporate tax rate (generally 30% unless a complying small business), individuals are taxed at the relevant marginal tax rate (the highest being 45%) and complying superannuation funds are taxed at a rate of 15%. Tax concessions may be available for foreign pension funds and sovereign wealth funds.
Where such a capital gain has been derived by an Australian resident investor from its investment in a trust (ie, as a result of a disposal of a capital asset by the trust or a disposal of an interest in the trust), the capital gain could be subject to a discount where the relevant asset has been held for at least 12 months and the investor is a qualifying taxpayer (ie, not a company).
Where a capital gain has been derived by a non-resident investor from its investment in a trust (ie, as a result of a disposal of a capital asset by the trust or a disposal of an interest in the trust), the capital gain could be exempt if the relevant asset is not taxable Australian property (TAP). TAP is generally limited to interests in land and certain interests in land-rich entities. No capital gains discount is available for non-resident taxpayers.
Where a non-resident investor disposes of an asset that qualifies as TAP (eg, interest in a land-rich Australian fund), the purchaser will be required to withhold 12.5% of the purchase price and remit this amount to the ATO. The non-resident investor should be able to claim a tax credit for the amount withheld (which could be refundable if the tax liability of the non-resident investor is lower than the withheld amount).
Managed Investment Trust
Where the trust qualifies and elects to be a “managed investment trust” (MIT), certain MIT tax concessions are available, including the following.
Broadly, to qualify as an MIT, the trust must satisfy the following requirements:
AMIT
The attribution management investment trust (AMIT) regime provides for taxation on an attribution basis as opposed to distributing funds on a distribution basis, and is designed to provide greater flexibility for trusts and fairness for their investors. Under the AMIT regime, investors are taxed on income that is attributed to them on a “fair and reasonable basis” for each financial year, and the trust would not be liable to tax, provided all its taxable income is attributed to investors.
CCIVs
The new CCIV structure has been designed to provide tax treatment that aligns with the existing tax treatment of Attribution Managed Investment Trusts (AMITs). Investors in a CCIV sub-fund will receive the same tax treatment as those in an AMIT, including “flow-through” tax treatment.
There have been a number of recent legal and regulatory developments and proposals for reform in the financial services industry in Australia, particularly in light of the recommendations that came out of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry (the “Royal Commission”).
Some of the key areas of development and proposals for reform that are impacting the Australian funds market are as follows.
The Design and Distribution Obligations Regime
The DDO regime commenced on 5 October 2021. This new regime applies broadly to the distribution of retail products and is not applicable to non-retail client products, such as wholesale investment funds. Please see 2.3.10 Investor Protection Rules and 3.3.10 Investor Protection Rules for further information.
The DDO regime represents a fundamental shift in retail consumer protection in financial services, which allows ASIC to move quickly to respond to potential retail consumer harm. Since July 2022, ASIC’s approach to DDO has moved from facilitation to enforcement, and as of mid-December 2022, ASIC has issued 21 interim stop orders after finding deficiencies in the TMDs of product issuers, including issuers of investment funds. Generally, interim stop orders prevent a product provider from issuing interests in a fund, giving a PDS for a fund or providing general advice to retail clients about an investment in a fund. The product issuers are expected to address ASIC’s concerns promptly; otherwise ASIC will consider making a final order.
Greenwashing – ASIC Info Sheet 271
ASIC is seeking to support effective climate and sustainability governance and disclosure, and its regulatory focus is responding to the growth in sustainability-related investments. This growth has been stimulated by the global trend for capital markets to align with sustainability goals, but ASIC is concerned that poor governance and disclosure will result in an increased risk of greenwashing.
To guide the funds management industry, ASIC issued Information Sheet 271 – How to avoid greenwashing when offering or promoting sustainability-related products (Info 271) in June 2022. Info 271 defines greenwashing as the practice of misrepresenting the extent to which a financial product or investment strategy is environmentally friendly, sustainable or ethical. ASIC identifies the regulatory setting as including:
ASIC recommends that product issuers adopt these practices to respond to the regulatory setting:
ASIC – Marketing Material
Following on from the previous year’s “true to label” review, which focused on the risk that product names did not align with a fund’s underlying assets and liquidity characteristics, ASIC has turned its focus to marketing and promotional material. The purpose of the surveillance has been to identify the use of misleading performance and risk representations in promotional material, and has looked at material targeting retail clients as well as unsophisticated wholesale investors.
In September and November 2022, ASIC publicly named 17 responsible entities and trustees who, following ASIC intervention, voluntarily improved their marketing material and practices. The product issuers identified represented a broad cross-section of investment strategies and registered and unregistered funds with more than AUD2 billion in assets under management.
ASIC outlined its key expectations for marketing materials, which include ensuring that:
ASIC is expected to continue its focus in this area in 2023.
Report on the Updated Breach Reporting Rules
The new breach reporting rules for AFS licensees came into effect on 1 October 2021, arising from amendments to the Corporations Act, as inserted by the Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Act 2020 (Cth). The reforms sought to address recommendations made by the Royal Commission that called for the strengthening and clarification of the breach reporting regime for financial services licensees.
Following the introduction of the new requirements, ASIC published its first insights report in October 2022 in relation to the reports lodged with ASIC. The report focuses on insights in relation to the following:
Some of the key insights shared by AISC in Report 740 included that:
Undoubtedly, breach reporting will remain an area of focus for ASIC in 2023.
Corporate Collective Investment Vehicles (CCIVs)
Please see 2.2.2 Legal Structures Used by Fund Managers for further discussion regarding CCIVs, which are a new type of funds management structure (being a new type of company limited by shares) that operate in contrast to trust-based managed investment schemes. The key policy objective of the CCIV regime is to enhance the international competitiveness of the Australian funds management market by enabling fund managers to offer investment products to overseas markets using concepts familiar to overseas investors, and is designed to provide an internally competitive and recognised funds management vehicle.
The New Foreign Financial Service Providers (FFSP) Regime
In the 2021–22 Federal Budget, the government announced that it would “consult on options to restore previously well-established regulatory relief” from holding an AFSL for FFSPs licensed and regulated in jurisdictions with comparable financial services rules and obligations to, or limited connection with, Australia. In addition, the government indicated it would consult on options to create a “fast track” licensing process for FFSPs that wish to establish more permanent operations in Australia.
This announcement created uncertainty for the new FFSP regulatory framework introduced by ASIC on 1 April 2020, which was set to commence on 1 April 2022. This new regulatory framework repealed the sufficient equivalence relief (also known as “passport relief”) and limited connection relief for FFSPs, and introduced a new funds management relief in their place. However, these reforms were subject to criticism and further consultation was undertaken by the government towards the end of 2021 and into early 2022.
In February 2022, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Streamlining and Improving Economic Outcomes for Australians) Bill 2022 (the “Bill”) was introduced into the Australian Parliament. The Bill provided for two exemptions for FFSPs from the requirement to hold an AFSL, as follows.
However, when the government called an election in May 2022, the Bill, containing the above proposed new exemptions, lapsed. As the new government has yet to reintroduce the Bill or to announce its position on the FFSP regime that should apply to FFSPs, ASIC has extended the transitional passport relief and limited connection relief and has delayed the start of the funds management relief until 1 April 2024, under ASIC Corporations (Amendment) Instrument 2022/623. As the position of the new government relating to Australia’s FFSP regime has yet to be confirmed, it is not clear whether it will reintroduce the Bill in its current form, change it or follow a different course altogether.
What is known is that ASIC’s transitional relief for FFSPs from the requirement to hold an AFSL will remain in place until 31 March 2024. The transitional relief provides that both the passport relief and limited connection relief remain available to FFSPs until 31 March 2024, although the passport relief is only available to an entity if that entity was relying on the exemption before 31 March 2020. Because of this, ASIC has indicated that it will consider new temporary licensing relief applications for FFSPs that were not relying on the passport relief as of 31 March 2020, or foreign AFSL applications for entities that cannot rely on the transitional relief.
FFSPs already validly relying on passport relief (relief for FFSPs already covered by regulations sufficiently equivalent to those in Australia) can continue to do so until 31 March 2024. New applications for this relief can only be made under an application for individual relief in the same form as the passport relief (ie, providing an avenue for new FFSPs to have access to relief in the form of the passport relief).
FFSPs that have been granted a foreign AFSL or are granted one during this period can continue operating their financial services business in Australia.
FFSPs may also still rely on the limited connection relief to allow them to provide financial services to wholesale clients in Australia, until 31 March 2024. This relief allows FFSPs operating outside Australia to provide financial services to wholesale clients in Australia.
Please see 2.3.3 Local Regulatory Requirements for Non-local Managers for further discussion regarding the FFSP regime.
Level 40, Governor Macquarie Tower
1 Farrer Place
Sydney 2000
Australia
+61 2 9921 8888
+61 2 9921 8123
www.minterellison.comThe Australian investment fund landscape has seen a number of trends and developments over the past 12 months from both a commercial and regulatory perspective.
Commercial Trends and Developments
Direct to retail
The Australian market continues to move away from intermediated retail with fund managers pursuing avenues that provide a more direct path to retail inventors. There is strong growth in the ETF market with traditional fund managers exploring exchange-traded structures, particularly for active or bespoke strategies. Retail investors are seeking access to a more diverse range of investment offerings at competitive price points.
Dual access
There has been increasing interest in the dual access structure for ETFs with fund managers wanting to take advantage of the benefits and flexibility provided by the structure. This structure allows a financial product issuer to offer the product as an ETF (by quoting units in the fund on an exchange like the ASX) while also allowing applications and redemptions off-market. Dual access mechanics and infrastructure are increasingly being considered and built into new products, even where the structure is not immediately utilised, to allow fund managers the flexibility to offer this access when demand arises.
Regulatory Trends and Developments
ASIC focus on enforcement
On 9 November 2022, in his opening statement to the Australian government’s Senate Economics Legislation Committee, ASIC Chair Joe Longo reiterated the need for ASIC to take a strategic approach to enforcement. Mr Longo said that given ASIC’s “broad and significant” remit, and the fact that ASIC is working with finite resources, it is necessary that the regulator “give careful consideration” to its enforcement priorities. These priorities are directed at achieving outcomes that address the greatest consumer and investor harms, using the full range of regulatory tools available. Mr Longo reiterated that ASIC remains committed to enforcement, referencing comments from Deputy Chair Sarah Court earlier in the month on ASIC’s 2022 enforcement record.
In his November speech, Mr Longo highlighted that a key challenge for ASIC is to “strike the right balance” between deterrence, education and prevention to reduce consumer and investor harms arising in the first place. However, it is clear from the enforcement activities of ASIC over the past 12 months that actively pursuing targeted enforcement is a key priority for the regulator. The authors expect to see this continue into 2023 as ASIC continues to focus on its immediate enforcement priorities, which include acting on misleading misconduct relating to greenwashing, crypto investments and DDO compliance.
It is with this mindset that existing participants and new entrants to the Australian funds market need to ensure they always have a customer-centric mindset, implement adequate legal compliance processes to monitor their financial services activities, and maintain the appropriate governance, oversight and systems over those compliance processes.
Design and distribution obligations
ASIC has demonstrated that it is actively monitoring DDO compliance and stands ready to act where necessary to prevent consumer harm. By mid-December 2022, ASIC had instigated civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court against a product issuer and a distributor, and it had issued 21 interim stop orders. This is a significant number given ASIC’s first interim stop order was only issued in July 2022.
In simple terms, DDO requires issuers of financial products to “retail” clients to design their products to meet consumer needs, and for distributors of those products to distribute them in a more targeted manner. ASIC intervention can be very disruptive from an operational and product-continuity perspective. A product issuer’s reputation is also at risk given ASIC’s approach is to publicly announce its regulatory findings, including the issuing of stop orders, which is typically picked up quickly by the financial press.
It is thus important for product issuers to ensure they have appropriate product governance arrangements in place through each stage of the product life cycle, including during product design, product distribution, monitoring and review. ASIC expects that product governance arrangements would, among other things, include:
ASIC have shown through their actions that where they identify financial product issuers and distributors which in their view are not adopting a consumer-centric approach, they “will take quick action under DDO to disrupt poor conduct and prevent potential consumer harm”.
Marketing materials and true to label
ASIC’s approach to DDO in the latter half of 2022 was in contrast to the approach adopted by the regulator in relation to fund marketing materials and its earlier “true to label” surveillance.
ASIC’s surveillance activities, which commenced in October 2021, looked at the marketing materials of managed funds, including both traditional and digital marketing, to identify misleading performance and risk representations. ASIC found that some fund managers must do more to ensure the investment performance representations in their fund’s marketing materials are appropriate, with some of the key concerns identified relating to:
As a result of the surveillance activity, the relevant industry participants voluntarily amended their marketing materials and practices following ASIC’s enquiries, with ASIC also publishing a list of the industry participants and the relevant concerns identified.
This recent marketing material surveillance followed ASIC’s earlier “true to label” initiative that focused on product labelling and ensuring that product names align with the underlying assets and characteristics of the fund.
It is important for non-Australian financial services providers to have a thorough understanding of appropriate marketing practices in Australia so that they can confidently participate in the opportunity the market presents. There is a patchwork of regulatory guidance relating to advertising, use of past performance, providing prospective financial information and product disclosure requirements which need to be considered.
ESG and greenwashing
2022 has seen the emergence of a focus on ESG and greenwashing, with ASIC publishing new guidance in INFO 271. This guidance provides a more stringent framework of disclosure principles and standards to prevent greenwashing of financial services and products.
INFO 271 complements ASIC’s true-to-label and marketing review initiatives, requiring a high standard of clarifying disclosure for sustainability-related financial products. ASIC has been focusing on the use of claims and jargon terminology related to ESG, “green” or “sustainable” products, and has made it clear that product issuers making these claims or using ESG labels and terms need to disclose and explain these thoroughly. INFO 271 sets out nine sustainability-related disclosure principles. These include:
However, it is the examples of misleading or deceptive sustainability-related disclosure ASIC provides for each principle which shows that the level of explanation and disclosure required is well beyond what was previously accepted by the regulator. One example is where an issuer explains that certain investments are screened out based on revenue thresholds, but fails to explain what kind of “revenue” the issuer means. This lack of detail may now be seen as potentially misleading. These examples contain scenarios which have previously been commonplace in the market, and make it clear that the bar has been raised and more detail and disclosure is required to avoid greenwashing.
Foreign financial services providers
A key area of interest for foreign investment managers is the state of play of the regime for regulating foreign financial services providers (FFSPs) in Australia. ASIC has extended the transitional relief for FFSPs from the need to hold an Australian financial services (AFS) licence and has delayed the start of the new proposed “funds management financial services relief” until 1 April 2024. This extension came about following a change of government in Australia, which saw a bill introducing changes to the FFSP regime lapse.
As the new government has yet to reintroduce the bill or to announce its position on the FFSP regime, the market generally welcomed the extension of the transitional arrangements. While ASIC has not amended the transitional arrangements to allow new FFSPs to rely on the “sufficient equivalence” relief (that is, relief for FFSPs from the need to hold an AFS licence where they are regulated by a foreign regulator sufficiently equivalent to the applicable regulations in Australia), ASIC has indicated that it will consider new temporary individual licensing relief applications for FFSPs seeking relief in the same form as the “sufficient equivalence” relief. This means that during the remaining transitional period, FFSPs that were not relying on that relief before 1 April 2020 need to either rely on the “limited connection” relief, apply for individual relief in the same form as the “sufficient equivalence” relief, or apply for an AFS licence if they wish to commence providing financial services in Australia.
Corporate authorised representatives
2022 saw ASIC turn its attention to corporate authorised representatives and the licensees that authorise them, with ASIC commencing civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court against a wholesale licensee that operated a “licensee for hire” business model.
Under the Corporations Act, licensees are able to appoint an entity or an individual as their representative to provide financial services on their behalf. This operates as an exemption to the requirement to hold an AFSL, and is often referred to as the corporate authorised representative exemption. Under a corporate authorised representative arrangement, the licensee is responsible for the acts of the corporate authorised representative, and also has statutory duties to ensure their representatives comply with financial services laws and are adequately trained and competent.
As part of the civil penalty proceedings, ASIC is alleging that the licensee, who authorised a large number of corporate authorised representatives across a wide range of funds and assets classes, failed to have in place adequate risk management systems, failed to have adequate resources, failed to maintain competence to provide its financial service, failed to ensure its representatives were adequately trained and failed to take steps to ensure its representatives complied with financial services laws.
While the outcome of this action is not yet known, it highlights ASIC’s expectations for licensees that authorise corporate authorised representatives to provide financial services under their licence. As a result, entities relying on this exemption and appointed as corporate authorised representatives may experience increased oversight and controls from, and reporting to, the licensees that authorise them.
Level 40, Governor Macquarie Tower
1 Farrer Place
Sydney 2000
Australia
+61 2 9921 8888
+61 2 9921 8123
www.minterellison.com