Money Management Australia’s Post

Middle East M&A activity continues to outperform the growth indices in 2024 and, in this environment, there is an increasing role for transaction risk solutions beyond traditional warranty and indemnity insurance. Learn about how tax insurance can help to unlock value and optimize outcomes on your M&A transactions in the region. Read on for insights! #MiddleEast #InsuranceEvolution #TaxInsurance #Lockton #MergersandAcquisitions #TransactionRisk

More focus please on the horrific impact of the CSLR on small adviser practices. That single practioner/small practice adviser firms (including the few that are actually independent) are picking up the bill for large conflicted corporates is criminal in itself. We should be subsidised to operate independently with clients best interests front of mind not penalised to fund compensation payouts on behalf of large conflicted firms.

It is disturbing that the advice profession faces another issue of this nature where at the core of the problem is a related party 'property' investment. The focus of action seems to be on the advice again, rather than the issues related to establishment and operations of the property investment. Why is there never enough focus on the product issues? It is also interesting to note that with UGC, they were only required to remain a member of AFCA for a year after they went into administration, compared to Dixon Advisory, which remained a member of AFCA for 2 years and 5 months after going into administration. With Dixon Advisory, ASIC stepped in to extend it for a further 12 months at one point. In response to a recent Question from Senate Estimates on this extension, ASIC provided the following response: "We have imposed such conditions on regular occasion—including in the case of DASS for a further year after its license cancellation—to preserve the rights of clients to make claims to AFCA. This is because complaints can only be made against entities which are AFCA members; if an entity’s AFCA membership ceases, no further complaints can be accepted by AFCA." Seems a bit arbitrary to me. We know that complaints can only be made as long as a firm is a member of AFCA, but leaving it open for so long is excessive, particularly after ASIC wrote to all of these Dixon Advisory clients in August 2022. There needs to be a standard approach to these matters, and just like clients having a 12 month deadline to submit a claim to the CSLR after receiving an AFCA determination, there should also be a 12 month window to make a complaint to AFCA after a business goes into administration. #faaa #fix CSLR

Our Managing Partner, Mr. Aditya Chopra and Senior Associate, Mr. Amay Jain share their insights with LiveMint in an article titled, "How to ensure phased payouts to your nominee in the case of death." Read more at :- https://lnkd.in/g-_2ndy4 #knowledgesharing #lawfirm #personalfinance #investment #estateplanning #lawfirm

In practice, companies may acquire rather than issue an insurance contract – i.e. they might acquire the contractual rights and obligations of previously issued insurance contracts from another company. IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts changes the accounting for these insurance contracts, whether they are acquired via a transfer, via a business combination in the scope of IFRS 3 Business Combinations or under common control. #Insurance #IFRS17 #KPMG #Guernsey

New ERISA regulations? Stay informed with our analysis of the first lawsuit against the DOL's investment advice regulations. Understanding these changes is essential for legal compliance and strategic planning. https://lnkd.in/eVC4B5Wf #erisa #compliance #strategy

Research and development problems ......... So the first professional indemnity insurance firm has lost its appetite to insure accountancy firms that farm out their research and development claims to a third party. No questions on the status of the third party just a no. They clearly see risk to the accountancy practice in these tie ups. Commission probably causes further issues. I detect changes coming for accountancy firms insurance ............as a result of hmrc challenging claims to research and development. Moving from an easy environment to a challenging environment other insurers will most likely follow suit why ? Litigation will follow rejected research and development claims as the costs of preparation are stood by the clients. They will look to recover those costs on earlier claims if clawed back from the firm or the accountant. The r and d market will now change as the ability to claim is beginning to be resolved by hmrc so that most future claims will be scrutinised. Litigators will be aware of the market changes. #insurance #researchanddevelopment #claims #hmrc

A FINC, or a Financial Interest Clause, is the insurance equivalent of a magic wand: wave it at a placement and all the regulatory issues surrounding admitted insurance simply evaporate ... just like that. This article, from Marsh, illustrates yet another reason (tax) why a FINC is usually evidence of wishful thinking, not a planned and structured approach to multinational programmes. As the IUA guidance referred to in the Marsh article makes clear, an insured parent must have an actual financial interest in its uninsured subsidiary for a FINC to work. The FINCs I am asked to look at often state that this interest exists, but saying that an interest exists - and being sure that that interest actually exists - are two very different things. There is a common misconception that an insured parent automatically has a financial interest in its uninsured subsidiary, by virtue of holding shares in that subsidiary. This is not the case, at least under English law, because a shareholder has no direct share in the assets of a company - a shareholder has the entitlements given by the constitution of the company whose shares it holds, and nothing more, and those entitlements are rarely sufficient to constitute the financial interest necessary for a FINC to work properly.

While reviewing the Professional Indemnity (PI) policy for a respected accounting firm, I came across something that gave me pause. It was a stark reminder of how even the most experienced professionals can overlook critical details in their insurance coverage—details that could have far-reaching consequences. A) The definition of professional services was too limited. The policy had a narrow definition of what constituted “professional services.” While it covered traditional accounting and auditing services, it left out some of the firm's newer services, such as: - administrative services - insolvency practitioner services - compliance services This gap could mean that claims related to these new services might not be covered, leaving the firm exposed to significant financial risk. B) The restricted geographical scope to EU only. This might seem sufficient at first, but the firm regularly works with clients in India, Israel, and Lebanon. Any claims arising from these international engagements would fall outside the policy's coverage, leaving the firm exposed to substantial liability. These findings highlighted an important lesson: as businesses evolve and expand, their insurance policies need to keep pace. What may have been sufficient a few years ago might now be outdated, especially for firms engaging in global markets or diversifying their services. If you’re an accountant working in a dynamic field, take this as a reminder to regularly review your Professional Indemnity policy. Look closely at how your professional services and geographical reach are defined, and ensure they align with your current operations. A small oversight today could lead to big problems tomorrow. PS: When was the last time you reviewed your Professional Indemnity coverage? #riskmanagement #commercialinsurance #insurance