EOFY Sale · Save up to $750 off your legals · Ends 30 June

Claim offer
Selected cases

Federal Court of Australia · [2026] FCA 303

ASIC v Macquarie Investment Management

A Federal Court financial services case about admitted AFS licensee contraventions linked to Shield Master Fund investments.

Federal Court of Australia20 Mar 2026

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • Financial services licensees need product governance that works in practice.
  • A Federal Court financial services case about admitted AFS licensee contraventions linked to Shield Master Fund investments.

Use this to check

  • The efficient, honest and fair obligation can be tested against real operating systems.
  • A licensee facilitating access to an investment product needs governance and monitoring evidence.
  • Declarations can still be commercially serious even where no penalty is sought in the proceeding.

Decision snapshot

  1. 1

    What happened

    • ASIC brought proceedings against Macquarie Investment Management Limited, trustee of the Macquarie Superannuation Plan.
    • The case concerned admitted contraventions of the Corporations Act in relation to facilitating investments in the Shield Master Fund on behalf of members.
    • The Shield Master Fund was later terminated.
    • ASIC sought declarations that Macquarie had failed to do all things necessary to ensure the relevant financial services were provided efficiently, honestly and fairly.
  2. 2

    What the court had to decide

    • The Court considered ASIC's application for declarations that Macquarie contravened ss 912A(1)(a) and 912A(5A) of the Corporations Act in relation to facilitation of investments in the Shield Master Fund, and whether the agreed facts and admissions supported declaratory relief.
  3. 3

    What the court decided

    • The Federal Court made the declarations sought by ASIC.
    • It was satisfied that the agreed facts and admissions provided a sufficient foundation, and that the declarations were appropriate to record the contravening conduct, inform the public and support deterrence.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • Financial services licensees need product governance that works in practice.
  • If a platform facilitates investments for members or clients, the licence holder cannot treat selection, onboarding and monitoring as someone else's problem.

Useful next steps

  • The efficient, honest and fair obligation can be tested against real operating systems.
  • A licensee facilitating access to an investment product needs governance and monitoring evidence.
  • Declarations can still be commercially serious even where no penalty is sought in the proceeding.
  • Product approval files should record due diligence, risk review and stop triggers.
  • Keep a product approval file for every investment or financial product made available to clients.

Practical read

This is a financial-services systems case. The headline is not the absence of a penalty. The headline is that the Court made declarations recording admitted failures by an AFS licensee in connection with member investments into a fund that later terminated.

The efficient, honest and fair obligation is broad. For a regulated business, that means the operating model matters: how products are assessed, how members or customers access them, what checks happen before money moves, how risks are monitored and how escalation works when the product begins to look troubled.

For smaller financial services businesses, advisers and fintech platforms, the practical lesson is to document governance around any product you make available to customers. If the business is licensed, the compliance file should show more than disclosure documents. It should show who approved the product, what due diligence was done, what monitoring happened and what triggers would stop further access.

Checks to run

Key points

  • Keep a product approval file for every investment or financial product made available to clients.
  • Record due diligence, risk ownership and monitoring steps before distribution starts.
  • Set escalation triggers for performance, liquidity, complaints or external warning signs.
  • Make sure board and compliance reporting covers products accessed through platforms or menus.
  • Review whether outsourcing or third-party product arrangements still leave licence obligations with you.

Key takeaways

  • The efficient, honest and fair obligation can be tested against real operating systems.
  • A licensee facilitating access to an investment product needs governance and monitoring evidence.
  • Declarations can still be commercially serious even where no penalty is sought in the proceeding.
  • Product approval files should record due diligence, risk review and stop triggers.

Related topics

How Sprintlaw can help