Australian Securities and Investments Commission v PE Capital Funds Management Limited (administrators appointed), in the matter of PE Capital Funds Management Limited (administrators appointed)
Case
•
[2022] FCA 76
•9 February 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v PE Capital Funds Management Limited (administrators appointed), in the matter of PE Capital Funds Management Limited (administrators appointed) [2022] FCA 76
[2022] FCA 76
9 February 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the Court involves the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) bringing proceedings against PE Capital Funds Management Limited (PECFM), an investment manager accused of various contraventions under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth). The key issues the Court needed to resolve included whether PECFM operated unregistered managed investment schemes in contravention of s 601ED(5) of the Act, whether it conducted a financial services business without an Australian Financial Services License (AFSL), and whether it engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct. The Court also considered ASIC's applications to wind up PECFM and the managed investment schemes it operated.
The Court found that PECFM had indeed contravened the legislation by operating unregistered investment schemes, conducting a financial services business without an AFSL, and misleadingly representing itself as authorised by an AFSL holder. The Court determined that the public interest in protecting investors justified the issuance of declarations and the winding up of both registered and unregistered investment schemes. The Court appointed Andrew Fielding as liquidator for PECFM and responsible for winding up the relevant schemes. The Court made orders for winding up PECFM, the registered investment schemes, and the unregistered investment schemes, and dispensed with the requirement for notice of the application for orders. The Court also ordered PECFM to pay ASIC's costs of the proceeding.
The Court found that PECFM had indeed contravened the legislation by operating unregistered investment schemes, conducting a financial services business without an AFSL, and misleadingly representing itself as authorised by an AFSL holder. The Court determined that the public interest in protecting investors justified the issuance of declarations and the winding up of both registered and unregistered investment schemes. The Court appointed Andrew Fielding as liquidator for PECFM and responsible for winding up the relevant schemes. The Court made orders for winding up PECFM, the registered investment schemes, and the unregistered investment schemes, and dispensed with the requirement for notice of the application for orders. The Court also ordered PECFM to pay ASIC's costs of the proceeding.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Corporate Law & Governance
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Breach of Contract
-
Unconscionable Conduct
-
Misleading and Deceptive Conduct
-
Unregistered Managed Investment Schemes
-
Financial Services Business
-
Civil Penalty
-
Winding Up & Liquidation
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Re Estate of Stagliano [2025] VSC 39
Cases Citing This Decision
16
Grubisa and Australian Securities and Investments Commission
[2023] AATA 3328
Stewart v Spicer Thoroughbreds Pty Ltd
[2022] NSWSC 558
Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California)
[2023] FCAFC 174
Cases Cited
46
Statutory Material Cited
6
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Marco (No 6)
[2020] FCA 1781
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Takaran Pty Ltd
[2002] NSWSC 834