ASIC civil case a dead duck: Storm foundersBY MELANIE TIMBRELL | THURSDAY, 20 SEP 2012 12:10PMLawyers for Storm founders Emmanuel and Julie Cassimatis have urged Federal Court judge John Reeves to dismiss ASIC's civil action, saying the regulator has no reasonable prospect of success in prosecuting the couple for breach of director duties. |
Editor's Choice
Trustees, platforms, cyber risk under APRA spotlight
Superannuation trustees, platforms and cyber resilience will be under more scrutiny in the 2027 financial year from the prudential regulator.
ASIC draws parallels between ASX and super trustee failures
ASIC commissioner Simone Constant has urged superannuation trustees to make good use of member data to better understand their needs as they move towards and through retirement.
Perpetual hit with double whammy redemption, impairment
Perpetual's earnings will be slugged with a massive impairment thanks to an unnamed client redeeming nearly $6.5 billion (US$4.6bn) from a strategy run by Thompson, Siegel & Walmsley LLC (TSW).
GQG hit by $21bn outflows, FUM falls
GQG Partners has recorded US$15.1 billion ($21.2 billion) in net outflows in the first half of 2026, sending funds under management (FUM) down 9.5% despite resilient investment performance across several of its strategies.
Further Reading
Products
Featured Profile

Andrew Gregory
CHIEF ADVICE OFFICER
UNISUPER
UNISUPER
After 25 years, Andrew Gregory remains motivated by the impact financial advice can have on Australians' lives. As UniSuper's chief advice officer, he is not slowing down on any of his current ambitions. Matthew Wai writes.







More powers are not the answer, nor is funding, maybe some proper management and staff who actually care? A personal liability on work performed, a legislated requirement to put the public ahead of their own goals?
What is good for the goose...
Maybe it should be ASIC employing defence council instead of the banks. What is the point of a government regulator that can't regulate? ASIC have claimed this whole time that they were focused on pursuing the banks for regulatory breaches rather than compensation for the average Mum and Dad investor, and yet at that the eleventh hour they cut a deal and drop ALL charges against the CBA. If there were breaches by the banks to warrant ASIC investigating and then starting proceedings, and if the banks were complicit in their dealings with the former Storm Financial, how can ASIC possibly settle with the CBA and let them make this deal without admitting liability. What will the CBA shareholders think after paying out over $260m in compensation, and yet their bank did no wrong? This will be a case where technicalities and lawyer speak will win over common sense justice, and once again the Mum and Dad investors who trusted their 'supposed' Financial Planner and ultimately our regulatory bodies will be the losers?.again.