Malaysian developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/s-p-setia">SP Setia</a> is the latest to jump into St Leonards booming Transport Oriented Development precinct.

The developer, which has previously delivered Sapphire by the Gardens apartment development in Melbourne, identified the Atchison Street site in 2023. It filed a Scoping Report around 12 months ago, and now has revealed the designs for the new&nbsp;40-storey mixed-use tower.

The State Significant Development Application covers <a href="https://next-portal.urban.com.au/projects/14650/summary">20-22 Atchison Street</a>, a 1,374 sqm site positioned between St Leonards Station and the new Crows Nest Metro station.

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/cox-architecture">COX Architecture</a>, the project would deliver 181 apartments, above a four-storey commercial podium, five basement levels, and new public domain works along Mitchell Street. The apartment mix comprises 35 one-bedroom apartments, 39 one-bedroom-plus-study apartments, 85 two-bedroom apartments, and 22 three-bedroom residences.

The proposal has been lodged as a shop-top housing development under the NSW Government’s TOD planning pathway, which allows increased density around key transport infrastructure. The site sits within the recently rezoned Crows Nest Accelerated TOD Precinct.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b799673d-48e2-46b0-801a-0e33a9330100" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/atchinson%20site.png?VersionId=dPh0UfwfaHpbFL1R7H1cbZNbIW0CHbCC" />

SP Setia acquired the Atchison Street site as part of its continued expansion into the Australian apartment market. In comments made to City &amp; Country (The Edge Malaysia) in 2023, SP Setia President and CEO Datuk Choong Kai Wai described the acquisition as “a strategic move” aligned with the group’s post-pandemic market recovery strategy.

“Our target for this exceptional development is local and overseas buyers, including first-home buyers, downsizers and investors,” Choong said.

The tower has been designed as a slender vertical form rising from a mixed-use podium, with COX Architecture positioning the development as a response to the evolving St Leonards and Crows Nest skyline.

“The purpose of the project is to facilitate the delivery of high-quality housing at a strategically located site and deliver a built tower outcome that is consistent with the desired future character of St Leonards and aligns with the TOD controls,” the design report stated.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b1a85eee-76f7-436c-a6da-73ba827b9b13" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/atchinson%20entry.png?VersionId=dA9jHGPMcm.dDbwk4QfxqWiY5bfh3UVt" />

The podium would incorporate retail uses fronting Atchison Street, commercial tenancies, landscaped communal areas, and pedestrian improvements along Mitchell Street. Vehicle access and loading would be consolidated via Atchison Lane.

Residents would have access to more than 665 sqm of communal indoor and outdoor spaces, while the development proposes 96 parking spaces across five basement levels.

The proposal also includes a commitment for 10 per cent of residential floor space to be allocated toward affordable housing through a monetary contribution.

COX said the tower form responds directly to the emerging high-density character of the precinct while seeking to maximise solar access, cross ventilation, and outlook from apartments.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2163f85c-f63b-4be3-aafa-f8763976cec5" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Article%20Feature%20Image%20%28Grid%29_5.png?VersionId=WiAmtIKJ6.ZQ41EtYEQ1fol7AeorKBlL" />

“The building is orientated towards north,” the Apartment Design Guide compliance report noted, adding that the tower’s slim form was driven by the constrained inner-urban site dimensions.

The design also incorporates landscaped setbacks and communal open space at podium level, intended to soften the interface with surrounding streets and improve pedestrian amenity.

The project adds to a growing wave of redevelopment proposals reshaping St Leonards and Crows Nest following the opening of the Sydney Metro City line and the NSW Government’s push for higher-density housing around major transport nodes.

Last week Stockland filed plans just down the road. They want to build a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/601-pacific-highway-st-leonards-nsw-2065">52-storey tower on Pacific Highway</a>.

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-stockland-plans-52-storey-538-apartment-st-leonards-tower">First look: Stockland plans 52-storey, 538-apartment St Leonards tower&nbsp;</a>

Joel Robinson

First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/urban-property-group">Urban Property Group</a> has revealed plans for a new mixed-use tower at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham, advancing a proposal that would reshape the southern gateway to Newcastle’s city centre with one of the city’s tallest residential buildings.

The State Significant Development proposal, now on exhibition, seeks approval for a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/bowline-10-dangar-street-wickham-nsw-2293">43-storey tower</a> immediately adjacent to the Newcastle Interchange. The project would deliver around 200 apartments, including 42 affordable housing dwellings, alongside 99 co-living units, a 171-room hotel, retail space, and new public domain integrated through the site.

The scheme marks a significant escalation of plans previously approved for the site. Urban Property Group took over the prominent 2,904 sqm parcel, where excavation and demolition had already commenced under an earlier consent for a 14-storey mixed-use development.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="58a96dd9-407f-4d20-86b4-94e4bfeef74b" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20podium.png?VersionId=LGlf08pdFGAZDzvx_CXC4XakHNZRuEE0" />

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/sjb-architects">SJB</a>, the tower has been conceived as a landmark transit-oriented development anchored to the Newcastle Interchange precinct. The proposal includes 245 build-to-sell apartments across a mix of one, two, and three-bedroom residences, as well as two penthouses. Fifteen apartments and one operational unit are earmarked for NDIS housing. The co-living component would add a further 99 units, while the podium would accommodate retail uses and hotel facilities.

SJB said the site presents “a valuable opportunity to anchor the precinct by setting the standard for design, active ground planes and character at the key southern gateway.”

The architecture responds directly to the site’s position beside major transport infrastructure and within one of Newcastle’s fastest-evolving urban renewal precincts. The tower form sits above a sculpted podium designed to frame new public spaces, including a through-site pedestrian link connecting Station Street to Hannell Street, landscaped plazas, and activated retail edges.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="a7bd6ff0-f7db-4ce8-a6dc-ea56e72c6149" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20lanne.png?VersionId=xzf39VADyhj7zBQY2I9fx9vI62u2tuSb" />

The design report describes the project as part of the broader transition of Wickham into “a vibrant, high-quality mixed-use urban precinct” that leverages proximity to the station, open space, and regional connectivity.

A detailed public art strategy has also been prepared for the development. The strategy positions the project as “a transit-oriented development of state significance at the gateway to Newcastle’s city centre” and outlines a series of integrated artworks responding to Newcastle’s industrial and transport heritage.

Creative Road’s curatorial framework for the project, titled Unveil, draws on “stratified surfaces, carved volumes, and light-filled apertures” while referencing Newcastle’s transformation from an industrial city into a contemporary education and technology hub.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="77a882bb-14b1-4d28-99ff-9438e39508c0" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20site.png?VersionId=cevgo_vN0eKPK78P8YcEu3mKPLkpFqE7" />

The proposal is being advanced through the NSW Housing Delivery Authority pathway after being declared State Significant Development in June 2025. The accompanying scoping report states the development aims to “maximise the site’s proximity to the Newcastle Interchange by delivering transit-oriented development” while increasing housing supply and affordable housing provision within the Newcastle LGA.

Urban Property Group’s plans align with the long-term strategic vision established under the Wickham Master Plan, which identified the interchange precinct as suitable for substantial uplift in height and density. The current proposal would significantly intensify that vision, positioning the tower among the tallest developments proposed for Newcastle.

The site sits immediately north of the Newcastle Interchange, bounded by Dangar Street, Hannell Street, and Charles Street. It is surrounded by a rapidly growing cluster of residential towers and mixed-use projects that have emerged following the completion of the light rail and transport interchange.

First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s latest tower at Wickham interchange

Bottega House has completed settlement of a landmark riverfront site in Macquarie Street, St Lucia, representing its first major Brisbane development.&nbsp;

Positioned on the banks of the Brisbane River, the <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/180-macquarie-street-st-lucia-qld-4067">premium site at 180 Macquarie Street</a> features uninterrupted river frontage in one of Brisbane’s most tightly held residential precincts.&nbsp;

The proposed development, currently under assessment with Brisbane City Council, has been designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/plus-studio">Plus Studio</a> with interiors by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/interior-designers/mim-design">Mim Design</a> and will deliver a boutique collection of premium residences positioned specifically for owner occupiers and downsizers.&nbsp;

The residences are set to redefine luxury apartment living in the area, with a focus on architectural quality, refined finishes, landscape integration and elevated amenities including curated wellness facilities, resort-style pools and recreation spaces rarely seen in the local market.&nbsp;

Exclusive sales for the project will be led by Keenan &amp; Byrne, ahead of an anticipated launch later this year.&nbsp;

Bottega House Managing Director Nick Malloch said the project reflects the group’s ambition to deliver a highly curated residential offering within one of Brisbane’s most tightly held precincts.&nbsp;

“This is an incredibly rare riverfront opportunity and one we have approached with a long-term perspective,” Malloch said.&nbsp;

“Our vision from the outset was to create a boutique collection of residences that feel more like private homes than traditional apartments, with generous proportions, refined finishes and exceptional amenity throughout."

Malloch says there is a&nbsp;lack of premium owner-occupier stock of this quality in the market, particularly for downsizers wanting space, privacy and a true lifestyle offering without compromise.&nbsp;

"Demand is expected to be strong given the scarcity of premium riverfront opportunities of this nature within Brisbane’s inner-west."&nbsp;

Bottega House secures landmark riverfront site in St Lucia 

<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-6" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-2" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-2" dir="auto">
<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-2" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:5a5ab36c-8dd3-454c-b456-c501f22f0eb4-0" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:5a5ab36c-8dd3-454c-b456-c501f22f0eb4-0" dir="auto">
The arrival of the first piling rig officially marks the commencement of construction at SIERA’s new beachside apartment development, Exhale, in Northcliffe.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/exhale-surfers-paradise-8-enderley-avenue-surfers-paradise-qld-4217">Exhale</a>, a glass-encased tower featuring 54 large-scale apartments at 8 Enderley Avenue, is SIERA’s third Gold Coast development. It follows the recently completed PIPIS Bilinga beachfront project, which achieved suburb-record prices, and the soon-to-be-completed Chevron Island development, Tapestry.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=359603]

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/siera">SIERA</a> Founder and Managing Director Brent Thompson said the arrival of the piling rig represented a significant milestone for the development, which is scheduled for completion in late 2028.

Over the next month, around 260 piles are expected to be installed as work progresses on the basement structure. The building is anticipated to rise above ground level early next year, before unveiling its sculptural glass curtain wall, developed in collaboration with specialist façade engineers.

“The façade was designed to maximise panoramic coastal views while creating a distinctive architectural identity,” Thompson said.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=355935]

Designed by BDA Architecture, Exhale will comprise just 54 two- and three-bedroom residences across 26 levels, a level of low-density living rarely delivered in this beachside pocket between Surfers Paradise and Broadbeach.

The project has been conceived as a resident-only building, with no short-stay accommodation permitted. SIERA says the model is intended to appeal to long-term owner-occupiers rather than transient holiday demand.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=361052]

Residences have been designed with large-format layouts and expansive glazing, with most apartments featuring more than 30 metres of glass frontage to maximise natural light and ocean views.

The amenity offering spans two levels and centres on wellness and lifestyle, including a heated magnesium pool, sauna, yoga and Pilates studio, gymnasium, private dining facilities, cinema lounge, and dedicated surfcraft storage.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=359607]

More than half of the apartments have already sold. SIERA has also opened a sales gallery for Exhale at its Chevron Island commercial premises, near its Tapestry tower and the site of its second Chevron Island apartment development, which is slated to launch in early 2027.
</section>
</section>

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=112661]

SIERA kicks off construction at Northcliffe tower Exhale

Local Little Bay residents, along with buyers from premium postcodes across Sydney’s affluent Eastern Suburbs, have dominated purchases in developer-builder Urban Property Group’s first Eastern Suburbs apartment development, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/este-little-bay-jennifer-street-little-bay-nsw-2036">ESTE Little Bay</a>.

The $250 million coastal project, one of the first new developments in the area in several years, has proven particularly popular with downsizers, especially those from Coogee and Bondi. One Double Bay downsizer paid $4.7 million for a four-bedroom penthouse, setting a new local apartment price record in the process.

Buyers have been attracted to the combination of coastal tranquillity, premium design and amenity-rich neighbourhood living. The walkable village setting, along with proximity to three of Sydney’s leading golf courses, New South Wales Golf Club, St Michael’s Golf Club and The Coast Golf Club, has also been a key drawcard.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112343 project_image_fid=352689]

Built across two low-rise buildings designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/hill-thalis-architecture-urban-projects-pty-ltd">Hill Thalis</a> and set along a lush, landscaped green spine, designed by leading landscape architect <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/landscape-architect/arcadia-landscape-architecture">Arcadia</a>, ESTE Little Bay offers a collection of one, two, three and four-bedroom residences with interiors by Richards Stanisich.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/urban-property-group">Urban Property Group</a> Sales Director, Tom McIvor said the response to ESTE has been "nothing short of extraordinary."

“Buyers have been quick to recognise ESTE as a rare opportunity to invest in a coastal sanctuary that offers both seclusion and connectivity to the heart of Sydney,” McIvor said.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112343 project_image_fid=352687]

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/project-marketer/srm-residential">SRM Residential</a> Senior Director, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/project-marketer/srm-residential">Clayton Ross</a> said the local market has responded incredibly well, driven by ESTE’s exceptional location and the rarity it offers.

“We’ve seen strong interest from a variety of buyer groups, all of whom are drawn to the exclusivity and quality of the build and construction by the 4.5-star iCIRT-rated builder / developer, Urban Property Group. There’s truly nothing else like it along Sydney’s coastline.”

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112343 project_image_fid=352690]

The project also includes robust buyer protections, including Resilience Insurance’s Latent Defects Insurance, providing 10 years of structural cover, and an independent iCIRT-rating of the developer.

“The iCIRT-rating adds another layer of confidence,” Ross added. “Buyers see it as a safeguard for their investment and their lifestyle.” A highlight of ESTE’s offering is its exclusive wellness amenities, including a heated rooftop infinity pool and outdoor heated spa, a state-of-the-art Technogym fitness centre, and a sauna.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/este-little-bay-jennifer-street-little-bay-nsw-2036">ESTE Little Bay</a> is topped out and is on track to complete towards the end of 2026, with residents moving in before Christmas.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=112343]

Eastern Suburbs buyers snap up ESTE Little Bay apartments

Asic

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/67834/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
In it’s latest report, the Australian Securities &amp; Investments Commission (ASIC) found the big four banks sold products to some customers through their adviser network, with a fee for ongoing advice, but the advice was never given. 
None of this came to light until the banks were asked by ASIC to look at adviser compensation, following the introduction of the Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) legislation in 2013. 
No wonder the banks were wary of their practices being investigated. Not only has it come to light that many customers (176,000 at the last count) were being charged for services they were not receiving but, in many cases, the banks didn’t have the data they needed to find out whether customers had been dudded or not. 
And ASIC is pretty sure why such systemic issues emerge at regular intervals, stating:
Cultural factors in the banking and financial services institutions covered by this report may have contributed to the systemic failures we observed. 
The ASIC report details the reason for the cultural failings it observed in the wealth management businesses of the major banks:
Some advice licensees prioritised advice revenue and fee generation over ensuring that they delivered the required services.
ASIC found that the IT systems in wealth management in the major banks were stone-aged at best. The banks appear to have no idea what they don’t know, but are all working to identify how many more customers need to be compensated. 
ASIC also found that some banks failed to keep complete or accurate records to enable compliance to be analysed. And in some cases, authorised representatives had taken customers’ files with them when they left the firms, making it impossible to check whether or not advice was given.
It appears that every time a question is asked of the big banks, another example of bad behaviour is unearthed.
In the recent questioning of bank CEOs by the House Economics Committee, questions were raised with all CEOs about systemic issues. The answers were generally evasive and short on specifics. 
For example, when talking about a different but related, financial planning scandal, Andrew Thorburn, NAB CEO, said:
“We did a review and we had an independent party come and do that review with us, and we concluded and we stand by that, that it was not a systemic issue.”
What Mr Thorburn and other CEOs neglected to mention was that the banks had, as revealed in ASIC’s report, all already been in the middle of deep discussions about so-called “fee-for-services failures” . The regulator wrote:
Of particular concern is that many of the banking and financial services institutions covered by this review publicly state that their core values include being customer focused, “doing what is right” for customers, and acting with integrity. We encourage the institutions reviewed in this report to consider how their culture may have supported these systemic failures, and why their stated commitment to providing excellent service to customers is not translating into good outcomes for customers in the many instances we identified in this report.
At long last, ASIC has highlighted cultural issues across the industry that the boards and management of the largest banks have long refused to acknowledge. 
The regulator has done its job and found compelling evidence that the culture of the banks is rotten. 
It’s over to the politicians now.
Pat McConnell is honorary fellow, Macquarie University Applied Finance Centre, Macquarie University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/pat-mcconnell-13137" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

ASIC report highlights a deep culture problem in Australia’s banks

<html><body>
Mark McIvor, former chief executive officer and founding director of Equititrust Limited (in liquidation) (Equititrust) remains permanently banned from providing financial services after withdrawing an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to appeal against ASIC's original banning decision.
Mr McIvor was permanently banned from providing financial services on 2 September 2015 following an earlier ASIC investigation into the collapse of Equititrust.
At that time, Equititrust held an Australian financial services (AFS) licence and was the responsible entity of two registered schemes; Equititrust Income Fund (EIF) and the Equititrust Priority Class Income Fund (EPCIF) and was also the trustee of Equititrust Premium Fund (EPF); an unregistered managed investment scheme.
An ASIC delegate found that whilst he was the director of Equititrust, Mr McIvor contravened a financial services law and was not of good fame or character to provide financial services.
His conduct involved breaches of the financial services legislation which were considered to be very serious, repetitive, prolonged and dishonest.
In particular, the ASIC delegate found that Mr McIvor contravened financial services laws by:
<ul>
<li>Signing 28 board meeting minutes, which falsely recorded a board meeting to approve a loan application had occurred, when no such board meeting had taken place, and in doing so, Equititrust did not meet its obligations under EIFs Compliance Plan; and</li>
<li> </li>
<li>Failing to take all the steps that a reasonable person would take, if they were in Mr McIvor's position, namely to ensure that accurate, true and correct documents were relied upon for compliance checks and not be involved in the production of false documents.</li>
</ul>
Mr McIvor subsequently filed applications for a review of ASIC's decision to permanently ban him from providing financial services and to stay the operation and implementation of the banning order.
The stay application was refused by the AAT (refer 16-181MR) and on 1 September 2016, Mr McIvor withdrew his application for review of ASIC's decision to permanently ban him from financial services.
ASIC Commissioner John Price said Mr McIvor's conduct was at the most serious end of the offending range and that it was appropriate he be permanently banned from providing financial services.
'People who provide financial services, especially those in senior management positions, are required to discharge their obligations under financial services laws efficiently, honestly and fairly. ASIC will ensure those who fail in these duties are removed from the industry,' Mr Price said.
Equititrust was incorporated on 18 August 1993 and was placed into voluntary administration on 15 February 2012. 
The creditors of Equititrust resolved that the company should be placed into liquidation on 20 April 2012.
The voluntary administrators of Equititrust reported that as at the date of their appointment:
<ul>
<li>    EIF had about 1620 unitholders who were owed approximately $203.6mil;</li>
<li> </li>
<li>    EPF had about 38 unitholders who were owed approximately $56.7mil; and</li>
<li> </li>
<li>    EPCIF had 5 unitholders and held no tangible assets.</li>
</ul>
On 19 December 2011, ASIC suspended Equititrust's AFSL for 12 months, for failing to comply with a number of key obligations as a financial services licensee (refer 11-306MR). Equititrust's AFSL remains suspended.
On 22 August 2014, Mr McIvor was convicted and fined $10,000 in the Brisbane Magistrates Court of six charges of failing to provide a Report as to Affairs and to deliver books and records to the liquidators of Chevron Capital Pty Ltd, MHSM Holdings Pty Ltd and SM Capital Pty Ltd (refer 14-223MR).
Mr McIvor was made bankrupt on 28 November 2012, however, his bankruptcy period has since expired.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Former Equititrust CEO remains permanently banned from providing financial services

<html><body>
The Federal Court has declared that land banking developments operated by Jamie and Dennis McIntyre were unregistered managed investment schemes in a decision delivered by His Honour Justice Bromwich on 17 October 2016.
The Court also made orders that Jamie and Dennis McIntyre be disqualified from managing corporations and restrained from carrying on financial services for a period of 10 years each, due to them being officers of companies that had failed, by virtue of them being wound up, and which had also repeatedly contravened the Corporations Act .
Jamie and Dennis McIntyre agreed to the banning orders made against them.
Further, the Court made orders to wind up the unregistered managed investment schemes, which were promoted and advertised by the 21st Century land banking companies.
The unregistered managed investment schemes are known as:
<ul>
<li>Botanica, located at 805 Archer Rd, Kialla, Victoria 3631</li>
<li>Secret Valley Estate, located at  955, Old Sydney Road, Bylands, Victoria 3762</li>
<li>Oak Valley Lakes Estate &amp; Resort, located at 124 Booth Road, Brookhill, Townsville, Qld 4816</li>
<li>Bendigo Vineyard Estate &amp; Resort, located at  51 Andrews Road, Bendigo, Victoria 3551</li>
<li>Melbourne Grove Estate, located at  1491 Dohertys Road, Mount Cottrell, Victoria 3024</li>
</ul>
Simon Wallace-Smith and Robert Woods of Deloitte have been appointed as joint liquidators of the unregistered managed investment schemes.
ASIC Commissioner Greg Tanzer said, "The high banning periods ordered by the Court in this case are necessary to protect the public from those who are officers of companies that repeatedly contravene the Corporations Act.  It also serves as a warning to those involved in unlawful unregistered managed investment schemes, including those that involve land banking, that ASIC will take action."
ASIC's investigation into the matter is ongoing.
ASIC commenced proceedings in August 2015 against Jamie and Dennis McIntyre and the 21st Century land banking companies in relation to their promotion and sale of interests to investors in five land banking schemes.
ASIC’s proceedings are part of ASIC's wider and ongoing investigation into land banking schemes.
</body></html>

Federal Court declares 21st Century land banking schemes unlawful

<html><body>
Jamie McIntyre and his brother Dennis McIntyre have accepted 10-year bans from ASIC on managing corporation or operating a financial services business.
This follows an agreement between ASIC and the brothers that the five Victorian land banking schemes, promoted through Jamie McIntyre’s 21st Century Group, were unregistered.
It also noted that they operated a financial business without a license at the time that they promoted it to their investors. Liquidators were unable to locate more than $7 million outlaid on controversial options on five landbanking schemes proposed for the outskirts of Melbourne, Bendigo and Townsville.
The McIntyre brothers also agreed to pay the $50,000 legal costs for ASIC.
Fairfax Media reported the $7 million was lost from more than 100 investors.
Justice Bromwich said that there were little prospect of reimbursement to the investors.
"[The defendants] have effectively capitulated in the face of what seemed the inevitable prospect of success [for ASIC] and reached agreement that the relief agreements were necessary and appropriate," said Federal Court Justice Bromwich in his judgement on Monday.
"Five illegal investment schemes were operated by the eight companies associated with Jamie and Dennis McIntyre," Justice Bromwich said.
Deloitte were appointed as joint liquidators to the corporate respondents to ASIC’s proceeding that commenced in August last year.
There is an unrelated property group by the same name. 
</body></html>

Landbanking 21st Century's Jamie McIntyre and brother accept 10 year bans from ASIC

<html><body>
ASIC has cancelled the Australian Financial Services (AFS) licence of Western Australian-based Macro All State Investments &amp; Securities Limited (Macro).
In general, the Macro AFS licence allowed Macro to:
<ol>
<li>provide general financial product advice;</li>
<li>deal in a financial product, issue or vary a financial product;</li>
<li>apply for, acquire, dispose of financial products on another's behalf;</li>
<li>operate a managed investment scheme, and</li>
<li>provide a Custodian or Depository service.</li>
</ol>
The directors of Macro included Ms Desiree Veronica Macpherson. 
ASIC obtained various ex parte interim orders in the Perth Federal Court on 21 July 2016 in part restraining Ms Macpherson and various companies that she was a director of, including Macro, from providing financial services advice, dealing in financial products, promoting financial products and otherwise carrying on a financial services business (see: <a href="https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/media-centre/find-a-media-release/2016-releases/16-258mr-asic-obtains-court-travel-restraint-and-asset-preservation-orders-against-west-australian-property-developer-and-macro-realty-group-of-companies/" title="16-258MR ASIC obtains court travel restraint and asset preservation orders against West Australian property developer and Macro Realty Group of companies">16-258MR</a>).
Section 915B(3)(d) of the Corporations Act 2001 states ASIC may suspend or cancel an AFS licence held by a body corporate by giving written notice to the body, if the body lodges with ASIC an application for ASIC to do so, which is accompanied by any documents required by regulations.
ASIC's investigation is continuing into the activities of Ms Macpherson and various companies of which she has been a director.
</body></html>

ASIC cancels Desiree Macpherson's Macro financial advisory licence 

<html><body>
As part of its ongoing work to curb illegal phoenix activity, ASIC has completed a proactive surveillance program that monitored the integrity of the payment systems in the Australian building and construction industry.
The surveillance program, carried out during the 2014/15 financial year, targeted eight large commercial construction projects across New South Wales, Victoria and Qld. ASIC checked the payment processes and systems of 40 individual building and construction companies (contractors) working on those projects.
The campaign identified concerns about the conduct of some companies within the building and construction sector, which may be falsifying statutory declarations when claiming payment from principal contractors for work undertaken. 
The focus of ASIC’s surveillance centred on:
(a) principal contractors requiring contractors to provide statutory declarations to confirm that the contractors have paid all amounts owing to employees and secondary contractors, before principal contractors pay invoice issued by the contractor; and
(b) contractors signing statutory declarations and providing it to principal contractors, in circumstances where it appears that contractors may not have paid all secondary subcontractors at the date of swearing the statutory declarations.    
As a result of surveillance campaign, ASIC found that two contractors may have provided principal contractors statutory declarations that falsely claimed that secondary contractors had been paid at the time of signing the statutory declarations.  ASIC also found that once the contractors had received payment from the head contractors, they subsequently paid all secondary contractors the amounts owing. 
Both contractors were issued warning letters about their conduct and advised to review their internal compliance systems and processes. 
ASIC has also identified a further two matters, outside of this surveillance program, where contractors have been engaged by a number of local councils and who have allegedly provided false statutory declarations where it appears that subcontractors had not been paid at the date that the statutory declarations were signed.  ASIC is investigating that matter. 
ASIC Commissioner Greg Tanzer said, 'While this conduct may benefit contractors by improving their cash flow, the flow-on effect is likely to cause significant detriment to other operators in the supply chain, such as other businesses engaged to work on these projects, in particular secondary contractors. Secondary contractors are often small business operators engaged by contractors to complete building works.  The viability of their businesses is often dependant on being paid by contractors in a timely manner.  They usually are not in a position to carry cash flow risk imposed upon them by contractors. 
'This practice by contractors, in addition to being an offence, can cause secondary subcontractors to suffer cash flow problems and experience financial distress, placing them at risk of insolvency', Mr Tanzer added. 
ASIC encourages anyone who has suffered loss as a result of these practices to report their concerns to us on 1300 300 630 or to lodge a <a href="https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/contact-us/how-to-complain/report-misconduct-to-asic/" target="_blank">report of misconduct online</a>. 
Background
The surveillance program was undertaken following feedback received from small business, industry bodies and other government agencies about the endemic use of false statutory declarations in the building and construction industry.
The falsification of statutory declarations to obtain payment from a head contractor could be an indicator that contractors are experiencing cash flow problems and may be in financial distress. This may subsequently give rise to illegal phoenix activity.
While false statutory declarations and fraud matters are matters for other regulatory and enforcement agencies, company officers who knowingly make a false statement regarding payments to creditors may find themselves facing criminal or civil action by ASIC.
Under the Corporations Act, ASIC can also take administrative action against company officers who engage in misconduct.
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Property 101: ASIC warns directors of construction companies using false declarations

<html><body>
ASIC has discontinued its proceedings against Simon Tickner and Lisa Darcy, former directors of LM Investment Management Ltd (LMIM). 
In 2014, ASIC commenced civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia seeking financial penalties and banning orders following the collapse of the Gold Coast-based fund manager against founder Peter Charles Drake and former directors Francene Maree Mulder, Eghard van der Hoven, Simon Jeremy Tickner and Lisa Maree Darcy.
The claims against Mr Tickner and Ms Darcy focused on their conduct as directors in signing off a loan to Maddison Estate Pty Ltd, which Mr Drake owned and controlled, in 2011. Proceedings against the other directors focused on both the 2011 transaction and another transaction that occurred in 2012.
The trial commenced on 29 August 2016. On 12 September 2016, after the close of its case, ASIC discontinued its claim against all directors in relation to the 2011 transaction.   
The proceeding related to the 2012 transaction continues against Mr Drake, Ms Mulder and Mr van der Hoven and has been adjourned until 23 September 2016 for closing submissions.
LMIM was the responsible entity for seven registered managed investment schemes and the trustee for MPF, an unregistered managed investment scheme with about 4,500 investors. More than $400 million was invested in MPF. In total, LMIM was responsible for managing at least $800 million on behalf of approximately 12,000 investors in Australia and overseas.
</body></html>

ASIC discontinues proceedings against LM Investment directors

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/65714/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The Australian government is planning to privatise the management of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission database of companies. This is a potentially damaging move which goes against the government’s own open data policy.
On behalf of the Australian government, ASIC currently charges businesses and individuals around A$50 million each year for company searches. The information covers everything from details of shareholders and company officers (A$19 per document) and their roles and relationships with other bodies, to financial reports and records of charges over company assets (A$38 per document).
It is undoubtedly a great money-spinner to charge members of the public more than A$1 per page for a downloaded pdf document. However, the original legislative purpose of making information about companies publicly available was surely not so that the Australian government could profit from selling that information. Indeed, there is no public policy or economic rationale for the charges.
I am yet to meet an economist who argues that levying costs on public information about companies helps markets operate more efficiently. What we’re actually doing is segregating the market into those who can afford public information about companies and those who cannot.
The movement of company data from public to private hands is likely to entrench the charges for public information about companies. The corporate database is likely to be treated as nothing more than a cash cow.
Inevitably the focus will be on how to fatten the cow. The question asked will not be should we make [so much] money from public information, but how can we make more? The adverse economic consequences and lost productivity benefits that flow from costly public data will not enter the calculations.
<h2>Malcolm Turnbull has supported open data</h2>
In March 2014 Malcolm Turnbull, then communications minister, made the following salient comments:
"To be frank with you, I think it is really regrettable that ASIC’s data is behind a paywall.
I have to say as a matter of principle, I don’t think the government should be charging the public for data.
Obviously these are tough and troubled times from a budgetary point of view – and there will be all sorts of contractual issues – but really, the productivity benefits from making data freely available are so much greater than whatever revenues you can generate from them.
Our goal is … wherever possible to make that data accessible and free."
Our prime minister’s reported comments are consistent with the Australian government’s own 2015 Public Data Policy. This commits to optimising the use and reuse of public data, releasing non-sensitive data as open by default, and collaborating with the private and research sectors to extend the value of public data for the benefit of the Australian public.
I know many accounting academics who wish to conduct research to inform public policy using the financial reports on ASIC’s database. They are prevented from doing so because they do not have a spare A$50,000 lying around to buy the data.
<h2>Better corporate and tax regulation</h2>
Academics are not the only ones who would benefit from making ASIC’s public data freely available. It would also help individuals to scrutinise corporate affairs and, in doing so, make valuable contributions to the Australian regulatory authorities. This is the Jerry Maguire principle of public administration: help me, help you.
In carrying out its regulatory functions, ASIC relies heavily on complaints and reports of corporate misconduct received from individuals. Let’s do a cause and effect analysis here: the higher the charges for corporate information, the lower the scrutiny of corporate affairs by individuals, the fewer complaints made to ASIC, the weaker and more untimely corporate regulation.
The 2014 Senate inquiry report into the performance of ASIC must have had such an analysis in mind when it recommended that ASIC charges be brought into line with other jurisdictions. Searching for public information about companies is free in New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
The 2010 Senate inquiry report into insolvency practitioners is archetypal of the public policy problem. This committee found overwhelming evidence of bad and illegal practices in the insolvency industry. These practices thrived while there was low scrutiny and costly and missing financial information. ASIC was unaware of the nature and extent of what was going on.
Similar to ASIC, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) relies on individuals to inform it of taxation misconduct by corporations. The same cause and effect analysis for complaints made to ASIC applies.
In carrying out its functions, the ATO is effectively hamstrung if individuals are unable to freely scrutinise the financial affairs of corporations and make timely complaints or reports. The heaving lifting of scrutiny and accountability in taxation falls on the few and the public purse is worse off because of it.
The 2015 Senate inquiry into corporate tax avoidance was remarkable not so much for the outlandish evidence of aggressive tax avoidance, but the incredulous expressions of senators in the Sydney hearing room as the evidence emerged. It was almost possible to read their thoughts: how could it be that we, the elected representatives of the people, could have missed this disgraceful state of tax affairs and for so long?
The answer, of course, is that there was a lack of timely genuine scrutiny by the public. It finally fell to investigative journalists such as Michael West (then of Fairfax) to blow the whistle after acquiring the financial reports of various multinational companies.
<h2>Cutting red tape for small business</h2>
Small businesses – often described as the engine room of the Australian economy – could also benefit from freely available company data. Small businesses and contractors should be able to educate themselves about the affairs of their corporate customers without having to pay the government for the privilege.
Unsecured creditors should be able to view the charges held against a company’s assets by secured creditors so they too can make informed decisions.
Employees and their representatives should likewise be able to freely access public information about corporate employers. Employees have an active and ongoing economic interest in a company, not least because of the employee benefits they accumulate such as annual leave, long service leave and superannuation contributions.
It is inefficient for the Australian government to levy charges that discourage timely regular scrutiny of large companies by employees. The social costs can be high when a company fails. Uninformed employees are likely to suffer shock and dislocation. Meanwhile the government often incurs the cost of paying out accumulated employee benefits.
<h2>In the public interest</h2>
Keeping public information about companies locked up behind paywalls and maintained by private interests is not in the public interest.
Free public information about companies in public hands will contribute to higher transparency, better governance and accountability, and less secrecy, incompetence, fraud and corruption. If the ASIC corporate database is sold, the opposite effects are virtually certain.
Jeffrey Knapp is lecturer/Accounting, UNSW Australia and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jeffrey-knapp-128623" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Property 101: ASIC company data should be open and free – even Malcolm Turnbull agrees

<html><body>
ASIC has banned Geoffrey Woodcock of Auckland, New Zealand, from providing financial services for a period of four years.
Between November 2011 and October 2013, Geoff Woodcock was the founder and manager of Capital Alternatives Pty Ltd and a director of Velvet Assets Pty Ltd. Both of those companies promoted alternative investments in Australia.
However, Capital Alternatives, Velvet Assets and Mr Woodcock were not holders of Australian financial services (AFS) licences. They were also not authorised representatives of a licensee.
Following an investigation, ASIC found:
<ul>
<li>a number of the alternative investments promoted by Capital Alternatives and Velvet Assets were financial products and as such the companies were required to hold an AFS licence;</li>
<li>as a consequence, Capital Alternatives and Velvet Assets carried on a financial services business without holding an AFS licence and so contravened s911A of the Corporations Act;</li>
<li>Mr Woodcock was involved in this contravention by the companies; and</li>
<li>Mr Woodcock personally induced clients to invest by failing to disclose that around 40-45 per cent of the money invested would be retained as commission.</li>
</ul>
Commissioner Greg Tanzer said, 'The Australian financial services licensing regime provides safeguards. Consumers should not invest with a person or entity in Australia unless they are authorised by, or hold, an AFS licence.'
Mr Woodcock has the right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a review of ASIC's decision.
There has been action elsewhere too against Capital Alternatives and other firms. 
In February 2014, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority won a case in the High Court against two investment schemes promoted by Capital Alternatives and other firms.
The FCA accused the firms of “promoting and/or operating collective investment schemes (CISs) in the UK illegally and without our authorisation”.
Judge Nicolas Strauss QC ruled that the schemes were collective investment schemes. 
The fact that the investment schemes were not authorised by the FCA means that they were operating illegally.
The FCA took out the case against the companies and individuals in July 2013.
The case focussed on two investment schemes: African Land (also known as Agri Capital) which offers investments in rice farm harvests in Sierra Leone, and is operated by African Land Limited and Reforestation Projects (also known as Capital Carbon Credits) which offers investments in carbon credits generated from land in Sierra Leone, Brazil and Australia. It is operated by Reforestation Projects Limited.
To sell the land, Capital Alternatives was advertising “Projected returns up to 175 percent in over five years.”
</body></html>

Capital Alternatives' spruiker Geoff Woodcock cops ASIC ban

<html><body>
Australia's home loans industry has improved its performance over the past year, adopting better 'responsible lending' practices, an ASIC review has found, though there is still  room for improvement. 　
ASIC has released its report (<a href="https://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/find-a-document/reports/rep-493-review-of-interest-only-home-loans-mortgage-brokers-inquiries-into-consumers-requirements-and-objectives/" target="_blank" title="REP 493 Review of interest-only home loans: Mortgage brokers’ inquiries into consumers’ requirements and objectives">REP 493</a>) 'Review of interest-only home loans: Mortgage brokers’ inquiries into consumers’ requirements and objectives' on the responsible lending practices of 11 large mortgage brokers with a particular focus on how they inquire into and record consumers' requirements and objectives.
It also examined how the changes implemented by lenders in response to the findings from ASIC’s report into interest-only home loans from 12 months ago last year (refer: <a href="https://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/find-a-document/reports/rep-445-review-of-interest-only-home-loans/" target="_blank" title="REP 445 Review of interest-only home loans">Report 445</a>) have flowed through to mortgage brokers.　
Since the release of Report 445 in August 2015,  　
<ul>
<li>the percentage of new home loans approved by lenders which are interest-only has decreased by 12 percent; and　</li>
<li>the amount that can be borrowed by an individual consumer through an interest-only home loan has decreased, as lenders have adjusted their assessment of consumers' ability to repay, in line with ASIC's recommendation in Report 445. 　</li>
</ul>
Information provided by the mortgage brokers showed that for the six months from July 2015 to December 2015,    　
<ul>
<li>the number of new interest-only home loans fell by 16.3 percent, with total value of these loans reducing by 15.6 percent; and　</li>
<li>the percentage of interest-only loans with a term greater than five years reduced by more than half, from 11.2 percent to 5.1 percent.　</li>
</ul>
Almost 80 percent of applications reviewed included a statement summarising how the interest-only feature specifically met the consumer's requirements and objectives. This compared favourably with Report 445's finding that more than 30 percentof applications reviewed showed no evidence the lender had considered whether the interest-only loan met the consumer's requirements.　
'It is vital that mortgage brokers understand consumers' requirements and objectives to ensure they are not placed in unsuitable credit contracts,' said ASIC deputy chairman Peter Kell.
'ASIC is pleased that our concerns about interest-only loans and responsible lending are being acted on by the home lending industry, but there is still room for improvement.' 　
ASIC identified practices that place brokers at increased risk of non-compliance with their responsible lending obligations, and identified opportunities for brokers to improve their practices. Key compliance risks identified included:  　
<ul>
<li>Policies and procedures—Mortgage broker policies and procedures provided only general information, rather than tailored information on specific products and loan features that may impose increased financial obligations or restrict repayment flexibility (such as interest-only home loans); 　</li>
<li>Recording of inquiries—Record keeping was inconsistent and in some cases records were fragmented and incomplete; 　</li>
<li>Explaining the loan choice—More than 20 percent of applications reviewed did not include a statement explaining how the interest-only feature of the loan specifically met the consumer’s underlying requirements and objectives. The level of detail in these statements varied considerably and in some cases, where an interest-only loan was specifically sought by a consumer (including where this option was recommended by a third party, such as an accountant), the reason for this was not clear; 　</li>
<li>Consumer understanding of risks and costs—In some cases, where the potential benefit of the interest-only loan depended on the consumer taking specific action (for example, allocating additional funds to higher interest debt), it was unclear whether the consumer understood the potential risks/additional costs if the specific action was not taken. 　</li>
</ul>
The report details steps that mortgage brokers should take to improve their current practices, including: 　
<ul>
<li>Ensuring they understand the consumer's underlying objectives for requesting specific loan products and features;　</li>
<li>Recording concise summaries of consumers' requirements and objectives and the reason why a particular product, features and lender was chosen;　</li>
<li>Providing a statement summarising the broker's understanding of the consumer's requirements and objectives, which could also include the reason a particular loan is suggested, for the consumer to confirm before obtaining a loan.　</li>
<li>Where the potential benefits of a loan feature might require the consumer to undertake specific behaviour, ensuring consumers were aware of the action they needed to take to obtain the potential benefit, as well as the potential costs should this action not be taken.</li>
</ul>
<h2> </h2>
<h2 dir="LTR">Background　</h2>
The review of mortgage brokers' practices follows on from ASIC's previous work on interest-only loans, which reviewed how lenders were meeting their responsible lending obligations when providing interest-only home loans (Report 445) . 　
The National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (National Credit Act) requires mortgage brokers to make reasonable inquiries about the consumer’s requirements and objectives in relation to the loan and make an assessment of the as to the suitability of the loan they assist the consumer  in obtaining. 　
Report 445 found that a greater proportion of interest-only home loans were arranged through the mortgage broker channel than direct channels (lenders). More than 50 percent of consumers use the services of mortgage brokers to assist in securing credit more generally.　
Mortgage brokers are well placed to assist consumers find products that meet their requirements. For these benefits to be realised, it is important that consumers have confidence in mortgage brokers, including their compliance with the National Credit Act.　
ASIC is currently undertaking a separate review at the request of the Government in relation to broker remuneration structures and their effect on consumer outcomes. That report will be provided to the Government by the end of 2016.
To download the report, <a href="https://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/find-a-document/reports/rep-493-review-of-interest-only-home-loans-mortgage-brokers-inquiries-into-consumers-requirements-and-objectives/" target="_blank">click here</a>.
<h2> </h2>
</body></html>

Asic

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Asic

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News