Investment Funds 2025 Comparisons

Last Updated February 06, 2025

Contributed By MinterEllison

Law and Practice

Authors



MinterEllison is a law firm operating across mainland Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, China, and the UK through a network of integrated and affiliated offices. MinterEllison’s global reach is bolstered by a network of international offices and deep, longstanding relationships with leading independent law firms around the world. The firm is recognised as having one of the largest and most specialised financial services practices in Australia. The funds team comprises over 40 qualified practitioners with a strong understanding of the financial services regulatory environment and active participation in industry working groups. Their expertise includes fund formation, fundraising, regulatory compliance, third-party engagement, investment advice, investor negotiations, and project management. MinterEllison has advised clients such as Next Capital, Quadrant Private Equity, and Metrics Credit Partners on innovative fundraising methods. The team also collaborates with major firms like BlackRock, Vanguard, and Macquarie on investment management, particularly in exchange-traded funds and A-REITs.

The Australian investment funds market is highly developed from both a regulatory and commercial perspective. Australia is a jurisdiction that is welcoming to retail and alternative fund strategies and managers.

There has continued to be a significant flow of transactional and regulatory matters following initially restrained activity during the COVID-19 pandemic, and this is anticipated to continue 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. 

A unit trust is a suitable local structure for hedge and credit strategies.

Following legislative changes in 2022, 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, and the key approval criteria are:

  • the trustee of the fund holds an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL) authorising it to be a “responsible entity” of a registered managed investment scheme;
  • the responsible entity is an Australian public company; and
  • the constitution of the fund meets the requirements of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the “Corporations Act”) and relevant ASIC guidance.

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 2002 (Cth) (the “VC Act”). Due to legislative requirements, the general partner of the VCLPs and ESVCLPs will generally 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:

  • 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 deed;
  • a subscription agreement;
  • a management agreement; and
  • any side letters.

A partnership deed for the VCMP is also required.

Incorporation of a limited partnership can occur in approximately two business days with modest registration fees. A VCLP or ESVCLP registration 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 regarding registration under the VC Act within 60 days, though there is a power to extend this timeframe.

A significant workstream to be undertaken on fund inception is the relevant “carry” vehicles and rules applicable for the carry participants.

As discussed later (see 2.2.2 Legal Structures Used by Fund Managers), if a CCIV is the preferred vehicle, these are formed on registration with ASIC.

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 the capital that they 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 issued with interests in a fund, the product disclosure statement (PDS) must comply with statutory disclosure rules, including detailed cost 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 and private debt funds. Venture capital investment in Australia is primarily high net worth and/or 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. Performance fees can be based on a traditional performance fee tied to net asset value increases or follow 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 wish 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 the following:

  • the term of the partnership must be more than five years and less than 15 years;
  • the minimum committed capital must be at least AUD10 million;
  • the partnership must only carry on activities that are related to making eligible venture capital investments (EVCIs), as defined by relevant Australian tax legislation;
  • regarding ESVCLPs, the investments must be in the “early stage”.

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
  • has a predominant activity that is not an ineligible activity.

An ineligible activity includes:

  • property development or land ownership;
  • banking;
  • providing capital to others;
  • leasing;
  • factoring;
  • securitisation;
  • insurance;
  • construction or acquisition of infrastructure facilities and/or related facilities; and
  • making investments that are directed at deriving income in the nature of interest, rent, dividends, royalties or lease payments.

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:

  • no single investor in an ESVCLP, other than in certain circumstances, can contribute more than 30% of the total committed capital;
  • the maximum committed capital for an ESVCLP is AUD200 million;
  • VCLPs and ESVCLPs cannot invest in a single investment whose total assets exceed AUD200 million at the time of investment; and
  • in general, they cannot make debt investments other than permitted loans as defined in the VC Act.

Given the strict requirements and restrictions imposed on VCLPs and ESVCLPs, many fund managers establish these vehicles with parallel funds (usually soft stapled-unit trusts). This structure allows fund managers to obtain the tax benefits afforded to VCLPs and ESVCLPs with respect to investments that are EVCIs while providing the fund manager with the flexibility to invest in non-EVCIs via parallel funds – a common strategy for leading Australian private equity and venture capital funds.

CCIVs

Amendments to the Corporations Act in 2022 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 are established upon registration with ASIC and are 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.

The foreign investment review framework is set by the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 (the “FATA Act”) and the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Impositions Act 2015, along with their associated regulations.

The legislation generally regulates foreign investment proposals by a “foreign person”. Foreign persons involved in applicable transactions are required to notify FIRB. “Foreign persons” essentially means individuals, offshore companies, or onshore companies in which offshore foreigners hold a substantial interest. It includes private foreign investors and foreign government investors.

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:

  • communications (including telecommunications, broadcasting and domain name systems);
  • higher education and research;
  • data storage and processing;
  • the defence industry;
  • energy (including electricity, gas, energy market operators and liquid fuels);
  • food and grocery;
  • financial services and markets (including banking, superannuation, insurance and financial market infrastructure);
  • healthcare and medical (including hospitals);
  • space technology;
  • transport (including ports, freight infrastructure, freight services, public transport and aviation); and
  • water and sewerage.

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 regarding 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 the regulation of the manager).

From a regulatory perspective, alternative funds open to only wholesale clients operate relatively freely.

There are very few limitations that apply 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 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 a foreign entity holds 20% of the interests in an Australian fund 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 such fund investments.

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 for providing financial services to Australian wholesale clients in addition to the option of holding an AFSL:

  • they may apply for individual relief from ASIC to be relieved of the obligation to hold an AFSL (as part of ASIC’s current transitional arrangements for foreign financial services providers (FFSPs); or
  • they may rely on another relevant exemption from the requirement to hold an AFSL.

The FFSP regime of exemptions is currently under review and in a period of transition. A new regime was initially proposed to take full effect on 1 April 2022 but has been delayed until 1 April 2025. The Australian federal government (the “federal government”) consulted on a new direction for the regime in 2021 and introduced a bill in February 2022 – albeit, when the federal government called an election in May 2022, a bill containing proposed new exemptions lapsed. A subsequent bill containing the proposed amendments to the FFSP regime was introduced to Parliament in November 2023 with a proposed commencement date of 1 April 2025. However, as Parliament is not scheduled to reconvene until early in 2025, there remains uncertainty as to the timing of the passage of this bill.

As a result, the current licensing and exemption arrangements for FFSPs remain in a transitional period. For further information, see The Foreign Financial Service Providers (FFSP) Regime in 4.1 Recent Developments and Proposals for Reform.

A regulated fund (typically an Australian unit trust) is known as a registered managed investment scheme, meaning it is registered with ASIC. The registration process is relatively straightforward and only requires that:

  • the trustee of the fund holds an AFSL authorising it to be a “responsible entity” of a registered managed investment scheme;
  • the responsible entity is an Australian public company; and
  • the constitution of the fund meets the requirements of the Corporations Act.
  • Once ASIC receives an application for registration, a decision on registration must be made within 14 days.

As previously noted, a limited partnership can be incorporated 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 providing financial services 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 providing 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, 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 alternative funds may involve providing financial services, for which an AFSL will be required, subject to applicable exemptions. In these circumstances, depending on whether an AFSL will be required or 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 be made to ASIC prior to any marketing activities taking place. 

Alternatively, if it is determined that an exemption is available, then prior notification to ASIC may be required depending on the exemption. 

Please refer to 2.3.3 Local Regulatory Requirements for Non-local Managers.

Once an alternative fund has been marketed to investors in Australia, certain ongoing requirements may 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, to:

  • provide their services efficiently, honestly and fairly;
  • manage conflicts of interest; and
  • 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, sufficient equivalence relief includes certain reporting requirements for ASIC.

Please refer to 2.3.3 Local Regulatory Requirements for Non-local Managers.

Investor protection rules concerning financial services for wholesale clients primarily emphasise adherence to the conditions set by the Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL) under which the financial services are provided (including compliance with relevant provisions of the Corporations Act, which encompasses restrictions against misleading and deceptive conduct).

Investor protection rules for financial services offered to retail clients include compliance with the abovementioned matters, as well as additional regulations aimed at safeguarding retail clients. These include requirements for membership in an alternative dispute resolution system and more detailed 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 must 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 consistent with the TMD. Issuers are obliged to conduct reviews of the TMD periodically and keep certain records. 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 to:

  • not engage in retail product distribution unless they reasonably believe a TMD has been made or is not required to be made;
  • take “reasonable steps” that will (or are reasonably likely to) result in distribution being consistent with the TMD;
  • notify the issuer of significant dealings that are inconsistent with the TMD; and
  • keep certain records.

ASIC plays an active role as the non-prudential regulator of the Australian financial services (AFS) industry. 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 other communication channels. Documents issued by ASIC include regulatory guides, information sheets and media releases.

Meetings between industry participants and ASIC occur from time to time in various contexts.

The key restriction applicable in relation to the operation of an alternative investment fund is licensing. Each entity involved in the fund’s operation must hold or be authorised under a relevant AFSL or 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 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 fund’s trustee 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 the following statutory obligations:

  • providing financial services efficiently, honestly and fairly;
  • having in place adequate arrangements for the management of conflicts of interest;
  • complying with the conditions of the entity’s AFSL;
  • complying with the financial services laws of Australia;
  • taking reasonable steps to ensure that their representatives comply with the financial services laws of Australia;
  • having available adequate resources (including financial, technological and human resources) to provide the financial services covered by an entity’s AFSL;
  • maintaining competence to provide financial services; and
  • ensuring that their representatives are adequately trained.

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.

Alternative fund managers often utilise capital call facilities, which are secured by the unpaid capital commitments of the investors to the investment vehicle itself rather than the vehicle’s assets. 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 take 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:

  • must be managed by an AFSL holder;
  • must be widely held;
  • must not be closely held; and
  • cannot control a trading business.

Where the trust qualifies and elects to be a “managed investment trust”:

  • fund payment distributions made by the managed investment trust to foreign investors may be subject to the concessional managed investment withholding tax of 15%; and
  • investors’ share of the gains arising from disposals of investments by the funds should be taxed under the capital gains tax provisions rather than be treated as a revenue gain (where the trust has made certain election) – as a result, a capital gains tax (CGT) discount may be available for eligible Australian resident investors.

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 through tax benefits.

For a VCLP, the key Australian tax implications include:

  • “flow-through” treatment – taxable income derived by the VCLP “flows through” the partnership to the investors and will be taxed in the hands of the investors; and
  • CGT exemption – a full CGT exemption is available for eligible venture capital partners (ie, tax-exempt foreign residents or foreign venture capital funds) on gains derived from the disposal of EVCIs made by the VCLP (subject to satisfying certain requirements).

For an ESVCLP, the key Australian tax implications include:

  • “flow-through” treatment – taxable income derived by the VCLP “flows through” the partnership to the investors and will be taxed in the hands of the investors;
  • tax offset – a non-refundable carried-forward tax offset is available to investors for the lesser of 10% of their eligible contributions or share of investments in the ESVCLP (subject to satisfying certain requirements);
  • revenue gain or profit exemption – any revenue gain or profit arising from the disposal of an EVCI by an ESVCLP will be excluded from the taxable income of an investor of the ESVCLP, which only applies if the revenue gain that arises would have been subject to the CGT exemption if the asset disposed of was a CGT asset (note that the exemption is capped where the relevant investment exceeds AUD250 million); and
  • income exemption – an investor’s share of income (eg, dividend) derived from EVCIs made by an ESVCLP will be excluded from the partner’s taxable income calculation if the partner is a limited partner of an Australian-resident general partner.

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 choose to engage a local responsible entity to manage the fund instead of creating their own responsible entity in Australia.

The responsible entity may then appoint an investment manager to oversee the fund’s assets. The investment manager can be an offshore entity or a locally established (usually an Australian proprietary company limited by shares) subsidiary of an offshore manager. The investment manager, whether locally established or offshore, would generally need to obtain an AFSL 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

Some of the key advantages of unit trusts are outlined below.

  • Tax “flow-through” – unit trusts that have passive investments (and do not have active businesses) are typically managed as a flow-through vehicle for tax purposes, which means that, unlike a company, a unit trust does not itself pay tax. Rather, the unit holders of the unit trust will pay tax on their proportional share of the distributions to them.
  • Asset protection – unit trusts offer additional asset protection from internal and external parties as the assets of the unit trust are held by the trustee on trust for the unit holders. The trustee is also subject to fiduciary and (as a responsible entity) statutory duties, including acting in the best interests of unit holders.

The perceived disadvantages of unit trusts include the following.

  • Unit trusts are not common offshore – unit trusts tend to be creatures of common law jurisdictions, and hence, they are often only used or well understood in some offshore jurisdictions.
  • No separate legal identity – unlike a company, a unit trust is not itself a separate legal entity and therefore, any contracts relating to the fund will be entered into by the responsible entity. This can give rise to some additional complexities when applying the insolvency rules.

CCIVs

Amendments to the Corporations Act in 2022 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:

  • professional investors (for example, AFSL holders, trustees of superannuation funds with net assets of at least AUD10 million, or entities regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority);
  • sophisticated investors (ie, persons regarded as having sufficient experience to assess the relevant investment);
  • investors investing at least AUD500,000; and
  • investors who met the requisite wealth test of net assets of AUD2.5 million or gross income of AUD250,000 in each of the previous two years.

Investors who 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 it applies to retail and wholesale CCIVs.

Process and Documentation Required

To register a fund with ASIC, the responsible entity must lodge the following documentation with ASIC:

  • a prescribed form including details of the responsible entity, fund, the auditor and compliance plan auditor;
  • the constitution (ie, the trust deed) for the fund, which complies with the prescribed requirements in the Corporations Act and relevant ASIC guidance; and
  • a compliance plan for the fund, which follows the prescribed requirements set out in the Corporations Act and relevant ASIC guidance.

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 are similar and include 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 made to retail investors generally requires a PDS, except in certain limited circumstances. The PDS must 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) is required to provide retail clients with specific confirmation statements. These statements are generally related to transactions where a retail client acquires (or redeems some or all of their already-owned) interests in the fund.

Ongoing and Continuous Disclosure Requirements

The issuer of an Australian retail fund will also have continuous disclosure requirements, which they must comply with 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. Further minor changes took effect on 20 October 2023. Please see 4.1 Recent Developments and Proposals for Reform for further discussion about this.

Investor demand in the Australian retail funds market continues to grow, with approximately AUD485.4 billion total funds under management as of the end of December 2023 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, Managed Funds, Australian, December 2023).

The size and steady growth of the market are 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 be or are eligible to invest in an Australian retail fund that is a registered managed investment scheme. Therefore, retail 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: 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 and 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 the 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 may need to restrict the scope of their investments as part of considering the suitability of the product for its target market – 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 must 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 entity or corporate director responsible for 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, whether 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 need to:

  • obtain an AFSL; or
  • consider whether there are any available exemptions.

Please see 2.3.3 Local Regulatory Requirements for Non-local Managers and 4. Legal, Regulatory or Tax Changes for further discussion.

Authorised Representative Exemption

One such exemption that may be 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 cannot rely upon a suitable exemption, 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 as discussed in 3.3.2 Requirements for Non-local Service Providers, any non-local manager that provides financial services in Australia would need to hold an AFSL 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 (ie, the fund constitution and compliance plan) have been prepared, these are lodged with ASIC for its consideration. In the case of a registered managed investment scheme, 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.

Applying for an AFSL

As discussed in 3.3.2 Requirements for Non-local Service Providers, separate from registering the fund with ASIC, and depending on the structure and scope of services to be provided in relation to the fund, an AFSL 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 can be relatively lengthy and involves preparing a number of documents to be submitted to ASIC. Preparing an application, lodging it with ASIC, and obtaining the 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 as discussed 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, because the activity of marketing the fund will likely involve the provision of financial services (in particular, financial product advice, as well as potentially dealing or arranging for dealing in financial products).

The Corporations Act places no restrictions on the types of investors to whom an Australian retail fund can be marketed. Consequently, a registered managed investment scheme in Australia can be marketed to any individual within the country. However, the entity promoting the fund must either possess an appropriate AFSL or be able to rely on an available exemption that authorises it to offer the relevant financial services to both retail and wholesale clients.

The 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 the country, for which an AFSL will be required, subject to applicable exemptions. In these circumstances, depending on whether an AFSL will be required or 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 be made to ASIC prior to any marketing activities taking place. 

Alternatively, if it is determined that an exemption is available, 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, certain ongoing requirements may need to be considered. 

Certain activities related 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 providing 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:

  • providing their services efficiently, honestly and fairly;
  • managing conflicts of interest; and
  • reporting “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, 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 on 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 prohibits 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.

The provision of financial services in Australia is regulated and licensed by ASIC, which is an independent Australian government body 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, 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 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:

  • the issue and redemption pricing for units in the fund;
  • the valuation of fund assets; and
  • the holding of fund assets by the responsible entity itself or a custodian.

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 Australian retail fund’s responsible entity or corporate director will be required to comply with certain statutory obligations. Please see 2.4 Operational Requirements

ASIC provides guidance regarding compliance with these requirements, which 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 and investment banks are 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 fund’s assets.

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 trust’s income as well as gains arising from the disposal of any investment of the trust and on 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 an Australian resident investor has derived a capital gain from its investment in a trust (ie, as a result of a disposal of either a capital asset by the trust or 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 non-resident investor has derived a capital gain from its investment in a trust (ie, as a result of either disposal of a capital asset by the trust or 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 may 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 those stipulated in 2.6 Tax Regime.

Broadly, to qualify as an MIT, the trust must satisfy the requirements specified in 2.6 Tax Regime.

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

A detail of the new CCIV structure is provided in 2.6 Tax Regime.

There have been numerous legal and regulatory developments and proposals for reform in the financial services industry in Australia in recent years, including some arising from the recommendations 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 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 does not apply 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 introduction of the DDO regime represented a fundamental shift in retail consumer protection in financial services and has allowed 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 late September 2024, ASIC had issued approximately 88 interim stop orders after finding deficiencies in the TMDs of product issuers, including issuers of investment funds and non-compliance with the reasonable steps obligation associated with distribution. 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.

Report 795

ASIC published Report 795, “Design and distribution obligations: Compliance with the reasonable steps obligation”, in September 2024, which sets out some of ASIC’s key observations arising from its recent DDO surveillance and enforcement activities. The observations primarily relate to an issuer’s obligation to take reasonable steps that will (or are likely to) result in distribution being consistent with the TMD and include the following:

  • issuers should check that a distributor has the capacity to distribute a product in accordance with the TMD before selecting them;
  • issuers should ensure that staff involved in the distribution of a product receive sufficient training to ensure distribution is consistent with the TMD;
  • issuers should ensure that their overall marketing strategy and the content and marketing channel for any marketing and promotional materials are aligned with the TMD;
  • where a distributor decides that it is appropriate to use a questionnaire as part of complying with their reasonable steps obligation, they should ensure it is effective for the product, considering all relevant factors; and
  • issuers should use existing information or data about a consumer or class of consumers (where available) when taking reasonable steps to direct the distribution of a product to the target market.

.

The report also shares some observations in relation to reliance on poor-quality questionnaires by issuers of investment products. 

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 of capital markets aligning with sustainability goals, but ASIC is concerned that poor governance and disclosure will result in an increased risk of greenwashing.

In June 2022, ASIC issued Information Sheet 271, titled “How to Avoid Greenwashing When Offering or Promoting Sustainability-Related Products” (“INFO 271”). In 2023, ASIC began enforcing the principles outlined in this document. Additionally, ASIC has included this topic as a continued area of focus in its current corporate plan. The principles in INFO 271 are underpinned by misleading and deceptive conduct law derived from the Corporations Act and the ASIC Act. 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. INFO 271 provides nine principles (“Principles”) that ASIC considers should be taken into account when preparing communications regarding sustainability-related products, as follows.

  • Is the product true to the label? – Sustainability-related labels must reflect the substance of the product and the underlying investment strategy, stewardship approach and asset holdings.
  • Has vague terminology been used? – ASIC cautions against broad, sustainability-related statements or “jargon”, including “socially responsible” and “ethical investing”.
  • Are headline claims potentially misleading? – Sustainability-related “headline claims” should not be misleading or inconsistent with other disclosure document information. 
  • How are sustainability-related factors incorporated into investment decisions and stewardship activities? – Issuers are to specify the sustainability-related considerations taken into account and how they are incorporated into investment decisions and activities.
  • Has a clear explanation of investment screening been provided? – Disclosures must contain sufficient detail to enable investors to understand the product’s sustainability-related screening criteria and how this is applied, including whether the particular investment screen applies only to a certain product or to the issuer as a whole.
  • Is there a clear explanation of the issuer’s level of influence over the relevant benchmark? – Issuers should disclose their level of influence when influencing the composition of an index against which portfolio composition is determined, or performance is measured.
  • Is a clear explanation of sustainability metrics provided? – Issuers relying on sustainability-related metrics in assessing whether an investment aligns with their product’s stated objective/strategy should disclose the extent of metrics involvement, sources of metrics and a description of underlying data and risks/limitations.
  • Are there reasonable grounds for sustainability targets? – Products with sustainability targets attached should explain:
    1. what the target is;
    2. how and when it is expected to be reached;
    3. measurement metrics; and
    4. any assumptions relied on when setting targets/measuring progress.        
  • Is information readily accessible? – Investors should have ready access to “adequate information, concise and clear enough to understand the sustainability-related considerations incorporated into the product”. This information should be “consistent across all mediums”.

ASIC has now provided additional guidance as to the interpretation of the principles through enforcement action. Key takeaways from this enforcement action include the following.

  • When applying an investment screen, specificity as to the extent of the applicable exclusion is essential.
  • Whether investment screening is a key facet of a bespoke investment strategy or is part of a broader investment policy, the same level of screening specificity is required.
  • Where third-party data providers are relied upon for investment screening purposes, issuers must be aware of the scope and accuracy of that data as is captured by the INFO 271 principles.
  • ESG disclosure must be consistent across all platforms, including disclosure documents, websites and social media.
  • Disclosures made prior to INFO 271 being issued in June 2022 are subject to the principles, as the law underpinning the principles has not changed.

On 23 August 2024, ASIC released Report 791, "ASIC’s interventions on greenwashing misconduct: 2023–2024", outlining its recent greenwashing interventions. The report summarises the high-level findings, key recommendations and good practice examples identified from ASIC’s greenwashing surveillance activities during the financial year 2023–2024. 

ASIC is expected to continue its focus on greenwashing in 2025, with greenwashing and misleading conduct involving ESG claims being one of its strategic priorities.

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 clarifying of the breach-reporting regime for financial services licensees.

Under the new breach-reporting rules, ASIC is required to publish an annual report stating its observations arising from the breach reports received.

ASIC published its third insights report in October 2024 in relation to the reports lodged with ASIC by licensees under the regime between 1 July 2023 and 30 June 2024. The report focuses on insights regarding the following:

  • the volume of reports and nature of lodgers;
  • the subject of the reports and root causes of the breaches;
  • the identification and investigation of breaches; and
  • customer impact, remediation and rectification of breaches.

Some of the key insights shared by ASIC in Report 800 included that:

  • the overall volume of reports decreased by 27% from the previous period;
  • AFS licensees reported more than credit licensees, and larger AFS licensees lodged a higher proportion of reports compared to smaller AFS licensees;
  • most reports were about a financial service, credit activity or product line;
  • the most notable change during the reporting period was an increase in the number of reports relating to superannuation;
  • false or misleading statements remained the most common category of issues to which reports related;
  • staff negligence and/or error continued to be the most common root cause of breaches;
  • most breaches were identified through staff reports or business unit reports;
  • of concern, breaches identified from internal sources, such as internal compliance activities, decreased;
  • the time taken for licensees to identify and commence an investigation into a breach increased;
  • a significant proportion of breaches involved customer financial loss;
  • licensees generally took less time on average to remediate affected customers;
  • staff training continued to be the most common rectification method; and
  • significant variability was observed in the time taken to rectify breaches.

Undoubtedly, breach reporting will remain an area of focus for ASIC.

The Foreign Financial Service Providers (FFSP) Regime

The FFSP regime has been in a state of regulatory uncertainty following a prolonged period of ongoing transitional arrangements.

By way of background, in Australia, FFSPs to wholesale clients have historically been able to benefit from class order relief, exempting them from the need to hold an AFSL, including by virtue of the “sufficient equivalence” relief (also known as “passport relief”) and “limited connection” relief, subject to transitional arrangements. 

Since then, there has been further consultation and draft legislation in relation to the FFSP regime, most recently resulting in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 being introduced to Parliament in November 2023. This Bill, which was recently split out into a further Bill (containing the FFSP exemptions), seeks to introduce:

  • a comparable regulator exemption – similar to ASIC’s current “sufficient equivalence” relief, this will be available to FFSPs that provide financial services to wholesale clients and that are regulated by regulators approved by the Government (and not ASIC as is currently the case);
  • a professional investor exemption – available where:
    1. an FFSP provides a financial service to a “professional investor”;
    2. the service is provided from outside Australia or during a permitted “marketing visit”; and
    3. the FFSP reasonably believes that providing the same or similar service would not contravene any laws in the location where it is provided from or where the FFSP’s head office and principal place of business are located (it will replace ASIC’s current “limited connection” relief);
  • a market maker exemption – available where an FFSP is making a market for derivatives that can be traded on a licensed market prescribed by the regulations from outside Australia (exchange-traded futures only), and the FFSP reasonably believes that making a market in derivatives would not contravene any laws in the location where it is provided from or where the FFSP’s head office and principal place of business are located;
  • an exemption from the fit and proper person assessment – available to FFSPs authorised to provide substantially the same financial services in a comparable regulatory regime to wholesale clients to fast-track the licensing process.

If passed, the exemptions are proposed to take effect on 1 April 2025. However, there is some uncertainty in relation to this date, given that Parliament will not sit again until early in 2025. During this transition period, ASIC has extended relief to enable FFSPs to continue relying on passport relief. Currently, FFSPs that relied on this relief exemption before 31 March 2020 may continue to do so until 31 March 2026. For FFSPs not relying on the relief at this date, ASIC will consider individual temporary relief applications seeking relief in the same form as the passport relief.

FFSPs may also still rely on limited connection relief to provide financial services to wholesale clients in Australia until 31 March 2026. 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.

Unfair Contracts Regime

Following a 12-month transition period, on 9 November 2023, the updated unfair contract terms (UCT) regime commenced. Reforms to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) and the ASIC Act 2001 (Cth) now mean there are significant consequences for using or relying on unfair terms in a standard-form consumer or small business contract. Businesses now face substantial penalties for contravening the updated laws, and with each unfair term forming a separate contravention, there could be multiple contraventions in a single contract. Penalties up to AUD50 million or more, depending on the benefit obtained from the conduct, could be imposed for each contravention.

ASIC updated its guidance material on UCTs in INFO 210 (for consumers) and INFO 211 (for small businesses) following the commencement of significant changes to the UCT regime.

In summary, a standard-form contract is a contract that has been prepared by one party to the contract (the business offering the product or service) without negotiation between the parties. It could apply even when the other party has the opportunity only to negotiate minor changes or where changes are permitted but only from a range of pre-prepared options. A term of a standard-form contract could be “unfair” if it:

  • would cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract;
  • is not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the party that would benefit from the term; or
  • would cause detriment (financial or otherwise) to a small business if it were to be applied or relied on.

There is an exception that applies to the funds management industry. The UCT regime does not apply to a contract that is the constitution of a managed investment scheme. However, if the contractual arrangements fall outside the scheme’s constitution, the product issuer might still be caught.

One feature of the reforms was that they expanded the small business class that can rely on UCT protections. A business will be a small business if it either:

  • employs fewer than 100 people; or
  • has a turnover of less than AUD10 million for the previous income year.

If a contract relates to financial products and services, there is a monetary cap on the upfront price of AUD5 million. For other types of contracts, there is no cap. The definition of “small business” has led to some unintended consequences, particularly affecting a few large, sophisticated financial services entities that the reforms have impacted. The authors believe that both ASIC and the industry are concentrating on these issues, especially in situations where transactions occur between two institutional parties.

Enforcing UCT Regime Among ASIC’s 2023 Priorities

Following the commencement of the UCT reforms, the Australian Financial Markets Association (AFMA) made an urgent application to ASIC for no-action relief in advance of the changes to the UCT regime, citing concerns on behalf of industry that the amended regime would apply to certain sophisticated participants in financial markets who are not consumers or small businesses intended to be covered by the regime. Following consultation with the Treasury, AFMA and industry participants, ASIC granted a limited class no-action position for institutional markets on 6 February 2024.

The no-action letter means that ASIC does not intend to take action for a contravention of the relevant UCT provisions or related obligations regarding the class of counterparties and standard form contracts outlined in the no-action letter. However, the no-action letter does not prevent third parties (including the Director of Public Prosecutions) from taking legal action in relation to the conduct it outlines. 

MinterEllison

Level 40, Governor Macquarie Tower
1 Farrer Place
Sydney 2000
Australia

+61 299 218 888

+61 299 218 123

www.minterellison.com
Author Business Card

Law and Practice in Australia

Authors



MinterEllison is a law firm operating across mainland Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, China, and the UK through a network of integrated and affiliated offices. MinterEllison’s global reach is bolstered by a network of international offices and deep, longstanding relationships with leading independent law firms around the world. The firm is recognised as having one of the largest and most specialised financial services practices in Australia. The funds team comprises over 40 qualified practitioners with a strong understanding of the financial services regulatory environment and active participation in industry working groups. Their expertise includes fund formation, fundraising, regulatory compliance, third-party engagement, investment advice, investor negotiations, and project management. MinterEllison has advised clients such as Next Capital, Quadrant Private Equity, and Metrics Credit Partners on innovative fundraising methods. The team also collaborates with major firms like BlackRock, Vanguard, and Macquarie on investment management, particularly in exchange-traded funds and A-REITs.