MLC, NULIS to face court over ‘fees for no service’

Jessica Yun

— 1 minute read

06 September 2018

NAB entities NULIS and MLC Nominees are being taken to the Federal Court by the corporate regulators for charging superannuation members for services that were not provided.

In a statement this afternoon, ASIC said it has commenced court proceedings against NULIS Nominees and MLC Nominees.

“ASIC alleges that NULIS and MLC Nominees (as the current and former superannuation trustee of NAB) misled members of MLC MasterKey Super products,” the statement said.

The corporate regulator is alleging that both entities deducted $33 million in plan service fees from 220,000 MLC superannuation members who did not have an adviser.

Furthermore, NAB deducted around $67 million plan service fees from 300,000 members of MLC MasterKey Personal Super where members did not need services and advisers did not provide services.

“ASIC seeks from the Federal Court declarations of contravention and a civil penalty,” the statement said.

The corporate regulator alleges that NULIS and MLC Nominees:

contravened s 912A (1) (a) of the Corporations Act 2001 in not providing services “efficiently, honestly and fairly” regarding the $33 million deducted in plan service fees;
“made false or misleading representations” to members with no advisers, contravening ss 12DB, 12DA of the ASIC Act and s1041H of the Corporations Act by representing to members that they were entitled to deduct the plan service fees and the member (with no adviser) were obliged to pay it;
contravened s 912A(1)(a) of the Corporations Act in deducting $67.1 million from members where advisers did not provide services and members did not receive services;
“made false or misleading representations” contravening s 12DB and s 12DA of the ASIC Act by failing to let members in MLC Masterkey Personal Super know they could turn off the plan service fee; and
“contravened s 912A(1)(c) of the Corporations Act by failing to comply with financial services laws”.

This includes issuing “defective disclosure statements”; “failing to exercise the degree of skill, care and diligence as a prudent trustee would exercise”; and “failing to act in the best interests of members”.