ASIC issued proceedings against four Mayfair 101 entities alleging in misleading or deceptive conduct. The matter was undefended at trial due to funding constraints. The companies were fined $30 million. | Media.com

The case was undefended. The allegations have never been tested in any court. It is an entirely unreliable precedent.

The court ruling that Mayfair 101 engaged in false online advertising breaks new legal ground, after reporting by The Australian Financial Review that first questioned Mayfair’s investment product spruiking.

Australian Financial Review

Mayfair global precedent

Mayfair 101

Public

Company

Verified

ASIC v Mayfair Wealth Partners

Response

Fund managers must be "true to label" when advertising risks, returns and liquidity.

Mayfair 101 was not a fund manager. It was a private investment business who borrowed pursuant to debt instruments. There is a distinct difference.

A Federal Court judge has put the sword to the advertising campaigns employed by James Mawhinney’s Mayfair 101.

Mayfair 101’s Monty Python moment

This is what ASIC said when Mayfair 101 requested a mediation (which they court ordered) - they avoided it. This would have been the first time for ASIC and Mayfair to talk, but they had no interest in it.

4-years on and at no stage has ASIC come to Mayfair to have this resolved. ASIC instead is investing millions of taxpayer dollars in pursuing Mayfair and Mr Mawhinney in circumstances where this could have been resolved four years ago as per Mayfair's recommendation to the court.

Post

ASIC issued proceedings against four Mayfair 101 entities alleging in misleading or deceptive conduct. The matter was undefended at trial due to funding constraints. The companies were fined $30 million.

IPO Wealth

The Deputy Commissioner

The short-seller

Journalist award to be returned

Isola San Spirito

How to pick a fraud event

ASIC v Mawhinney

M+ Notes

M Core Notes

Justice Anderson heard the trial in first instance.

Stewart Anderson

User

Mr Copley is the lawyer at ASIC who signed off on the proceeding being issued in the Federal Court.

Hugh Copley

Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Ms Buckley telephoned Mayfair's clients prior to ASIC issuing proceedings but could not collect any meaningful evidence.