ANZ decision held up
(19 April 2010 – New Zealand) The Commerce Commission’s decision regarding the prosecution of ANZ National Bank’s promotion of failed ING funds will not be made public for another month.
The commission launched an investigation on whether the sale of two ING funds, heavily promoted by ANZ, were in breach of the fair trading act.
ING’s funds, diversified Yield Fund and the Regular Income Fund, contained investments in complex collateralised debt obligations (CDOs), despite being advertised as low or moderate risk investments.
In March 2008, ING made the decision to freeze the funds, that at their peak were worth NZ$850 million (A$672 million).
Of the angry ING investors around 14,000 decided to take up an offer that saw 60 percent of their frozen funds returned, however in turn they lost the right to benefit from any legal action or claims.
The commission originally said that the investigation conclusion was due mid April, two weeks later than planned, but now has said that discussions with ANZ need to be wrapped up before the decision can be made public.
Commerce Commission chairman Mark Berry said that a clash of regulatory priorities were the reason for the hold-up, which was widely criticised for leaving investors in limbo.
ING’s funds, diversified Yield Fund and the Regular Income Fund, contained investments in complex collateralised debt obligations (CDOs), despite being advertised as low or moderate risk investments.
In March 2008, ING made the decision to freeze the funds, that at their peak were worth NZ$850 million (A$672 million).
Of the angry ING investors around 14,000 decided to take up an offer that saw 60 percent of their frozen funds returned, however in turn they lost the right to benefit from any legal action or claims.
The commission originally said that the investigation conclusion was due mid April, two weeks later than planned, but now has said that discussions with ANZ need to be wrapped up before the decision can be made public.
Commerce Commission chairman Mark Berry said that a clash of regulatory priorities were the reason for the hold-up, which was widely criticised for leaving investors in limbo.
Subscribe