Tag: Banking Royal Commission

Brokers targeted in major litigation proceedings

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers has confirmed that it is preparing court proceedings against the major banks and brokers in regards to alleged breaches of the NCCP, according to The Adviser.

On Monday, media reports began circulating about rolling litigation being levelled at the major banks and brokers relating to alleged breaches of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (NCCP Act).

The move follows on from questions asked by the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry over whether credit providers have adequate policies in place to ensure that they comply with “their obligations under the National Credit Act when offering broker-originated home loans to customers, insofar as those policies require them to make reasonable inquiries about the consumer’s requirements and objectives in relation to the credit contract, to make reasonable inquiries about the consumer’s financial situation, and to take reasonable steps to verify the consumer’s financial situation”.

Earlier this year, the royal commission was damning in its critique of the lenders’ policies when it came to ensuring customers can afford their home loans, with ANZ being called out for their “lack of processes in relation to the verification of a customer’s expenses”, and both Westpac and NAB revealing that there had been instances of their staff accepting falsified documentation for loans.

Further, Westpac recently admitted to breaches of responsible lending obligations when issuing home loans to customers and agreed to pay a $35 million civil penalty to resolve Federal Court proceedings.

While there has not been any systemic issues with arrears rates or housing affordability to date, Maurice Blackburn has suggested that the reliance on benchmarks, such as the Household Expenditure Measure, coupled with a softening property market and the “maturity of interest-only loans”, could “leave thousands in financial ruin, staring at the prospect of bankruptcy”.

Further, the law firm took aim at the mortgage broker market, relying on some controversial statistics from investment bank UBS regarding the third-party channel.

Court proceedings expected “in the coming months”

In a statement to The Adviser, Maurice Blackburn principal Josh Mennen confirmed that the law firm is pursuing legal action, stating: “A combination of banks’ relaxed lending standards and brokers’ involvement in loan sales has resulted in widespread debt over-commitment that threatens the stability of the broader economy. A survey of more than 900 home loans conducted by investment bank UBS found that around $500 billion worth of outstanding home loans are based on incorrect statements about incomes, assets, existing debts and/or expenses.

“This means 18 per cent of all outstanding Australian credit is based on inaccurate information, often caused by poor advice or misrepresentations by a mortgage broker eager to generate a sale commission.”

It should be noted that the figures quoted are in relation to a UBS report which asked borrowers about the accuracy of their home loan applications, and that representatives from several bodies — including ASIC — have called into question the weight of this response, arguing that “for many consumers the additional work and additional steps that banks and other lenders are taking to verify someone’s financial situation won’t be apparent to them”.

For example, ASIC’s Michael Saadat, senior executive leader for deposit takers, credit and insurers, said last year that “consumers are probably not the best judge of what banks are doing behind the scenes to make sure borrowers can afford the loans they’re being provided with”.

In his statement to The Adviser, Mr Mennen continued: “A staggering 30 per cent of loans surveyed had been issued based on understated living costs and around 15 per cent on understated other debts or overstated income.

“Add to the equation the fact that a huge proportion of mortgage loans issued over the past decade were ‘interest-only loans’. These loans have an initial period (usually five years) where only the interest on the loan is repaid. However, after the interest-only period ends and the principal is also paid down, the loan repayments can increase between 30–60 per cent.”

While the principal conceded that this “problem has been contained” by investors being able to sell their interest-only investment properties and therefore “often fortunate enough to sell the investment property at a gain or at least break even, clearing the mortgage without too much pain,” he suggested that the current environment in which interest rates are rising, while some property markets (such as Sydney and Melbourne) are declining, could be cause for concern.

“These factors, in combination with the maturity of interest-only loans, will further drive up distress sales in a stagnant or contracting market and may leave thousands in financial ruin, staring at the prospect of bankruptcy,” the lawyer said.

Realising a prediction from UBS analysts that the evidence of “mortgage mis-selling and irresponsible lending” found during the royal commission could result in the banks being subject to “very costly” class actions, Maurice Blackburn is now mounting legal cases against banks and/or brokers.

Mr Mennen said: “We believe that, as consumers losses are crystallised, many will have strong claims for compensation against their lender and/or mortgage broker for breaches of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (NCCP Act) for failing to comply with responsible lending obligations including by not making reasonable inquiries and verifications about customers’ ability to repay the loan.

“We are acting for many such customers and are preparing to commence court proceedings against major banks in the coming months.”

It is not yet known which brokers or broker groups, if any, will be targeted in the legal action.

However, the corporate regulator has reiterated its view that lenders should be held accountable for breaches of responsible lending obligations, irrespective of whether the loan was broker-originated.

In its most recent Enforcement Outcomes report, which outlines the action the financial services regulator has taken over the first half of the calendar year, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) stressed that lenders should not offload blame to third parties when a loan is found to be in breach of responsible lending obligations.

AMP knew it was charging dead people years ago

AMP was aware that it was charging dead customers life insurance premiums as far back as 2016 but failed to report the matter to regulators, the royal commission has heard, via InvestorDaily.

On Monday (17 September), the Hayne royal commission learned of a number of emails between AMP staff members dating back to 2016 raising the issue of insurance premiums being charged to dead people.

A 2016 email from an AMP staff member, Luke Wilson, regarding a claim being paid to a dead person observed that “this has been going on well before I started in the team”.

Counsel assisting Mark Costello questioned witness and AMP chief customer officer Paul Sainsbury about what Mr Wilson meant by this.

The AMP executive told the royal commission that, as he understood it, the “problem” had been going on for some time.

That problem, the commission learned, was AMP’s practice of charging dead people insurance premiums.

In another email, AMP staffer Luke Wilson wrote:

The issue is that [corporate superannuation] continued to charge premiums for the insurance even after AMP has been notified of the member’s passing. We have raised this with [sic] corp in the past and asked them why they continue to charge the insurance premiums once they are notified of a customer’s death. Back in 2016 I believe that they were of the understanding that premiums are refunded when the policy is paid, which is incorrect.

However, AMP only opened an investigation into the matter in April 2018, which was prompted by similar events at CBA, Mr Sainsbury told the commission.

“It was as a result of the CBA’s circumstances around premiums on deceased members. A question was asked in AMP ‘could this happen to us?’” Mr Sainsbury told the commission.

Counsel assisting Mark Costello asked: “Stopping the premiums being charged when you’ve been notified that the person is dead seems like a rather obvious step, doesn’t it?”

“Yes it does,” Mr Sainsbury said.

Costello: “But it wasn’t taken in 2016?”

Sainsbury: “No. The system was coded to refund it when the claim was admitted.”

Costello: “Why was that?”

Sainsbury: “I couldn’t tell you.”

The royal commission then heard about a case in which a customer had died on 24 February 2015 but premiums were still being deducted at June 2016. There was a request for the charged premiums to be reversed. The issue was not reported to ASIC.

“I can only assume the claim wasn’t admitted at that time. It’s a process as I’ve described. A refund occurs automatically by the system when a claim is actually finalised,” Mr Sainsbury explained.

Commissioner Hayne then sought further clarification of what Mr Sainsbury meant by a “refund”: “A refund of what is deducted? A refund plus the earnings it would have earned? A refund of what?”

“Commissioner, I believe it is a refund of the premiums,” Mr Sainsbury said.

“So the time value of money goes to AMP’s benefit?” the commissioner asked.

Mr Sainsbury replied: “Potentially.”

“Charging premiums for life insurance to someone who’s dead. That’s the position isn’t it?” Mr Hayne said.

“Yes,” said the AMP executive. “That’s the way the system is treating it today for a portion of our business.”

The royal commission heard that neither APRA nor ASIC were told that AMP was aware that it was charging life insurance premiums to dead people in 2016.

AMP charged 4,645 deceased persons life insurance premiums totalling approximately $1.3 million, the commission heard.

ASIC gave CBA 96% penalty discount for misleading consumers

The Hayne royal commission has learned that the corporate watchdog allowed CBA to pay a substantially reduced fine despite misleading customers in its advertising, via InvestorDaily.

The royal commission has heard that ASIC not only gave CBA a severe discount for the misleading conduct but also let Australia’s biggest bank draft the media release regarding the action.

Senior counsel assisting Rowena Orr, QC opened Thursday’s hearing by questioning Helen Troup, the executive general manager of CBA’s insurance business CommInsure.

Ms Troup was taken through four pieces of advertising for CommInsure’s life and trauma insurance policy to determine how they discussed coverage for a heart attack.

Ms Troup accepted that in every case someone reading the adverts would believe the trauma policy covered all heart attacks.

The royal commission heard that CommInsure made a $300,000 voluntary community benefit payment as part of its agreement with ASIC to resolve the issue of misleading advertising.

Ms Orr pointed out to the commission that the maximum penalty for misleading conduct was 10,000 penalty units or almost $2 million per contravention.

In this instance, as Ms Troup had agreed to four adverts being misleading, it could have led to a fine of $8 million. But CommInsure only had to pay $300,000 as part of its agreement with ASIC to resolve the issue.

ASIC in fact seemed to have asked CBA if they thought the $300,000 was appropriate as Ms Orr read out to the commission a letter from the senior executive of ASIC, Tim Mullaly, addressed to CBA:

Could you please consider and let us know whether this is sufficient for CommInsure to resolve the matter, including by way of payment of the community benefit payment, in absence of infringement notices.

This provoked commissioner Hayne to ask if it was a case of the bank stipulating the terms of the punishment.

“The regulator asking the regulated whether the proposal was sufficient in the eyes of the party alleged to have broken the law, is that right?” he asked.

“We could have taken the approach of continuing to defend our position, so this was the alternative,” Ms Troup said.

Commissioner Hayne continued and asked Ms Troup if CommInsure viewed the community payment as a form of punishment.

“The $300,000 community benefit payment was a form of punishment,” she said.

Up until today’s hearing, CBA had not acknowledged the misleading adverts and had even advised ASIC on what language to use in their press release, said Ms Orr.

Ms Orr concluded by summarising that ASIC had given CommInsure notice of its findings, took no enforceable action and gave CommInsure the opportunity to make changes to the media release.

CBA ignored ASIC to deny claims payout

CBA’s life insurance business CommInsure has admitted to not following recommendations from the corporate regulator to update its medical definition of a heart attack so it could deny the payout of a trauma claim to one of its customers, via InvestorDaily.

On Wednesday, the royal commission heard that ASIC had sent a letter to CommInsure flagging its concerns that its reliance on outdated medical definitions in assessing claims – while not in breach of the duty of utmost good faith in Section 13 of the Insurance Contracts Act – fell significantly short of consumer expectations.

The counsel assisting Rowena Orr cited a letter from 22 March 2017 from the ASIC deputy chair at the time, Peter Kell, who noted that in, 2012, the European Society of Cardiology, the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association and the World Health Federation published an expert consensus document about the definition of heart attacks.

Sitting in the witness box, CommInsure managing director Helen Troup was questioned by Ms Orr on whether she was aware that this had been reached at the time.“Yes,” Ms Troup said.

“And that report endorsed the use of troponin as a means of detecting heart attacks?” Ms Orr continued.

“Yes,” Ms Troup responded.

“And the report said that laboratories should use a cut-off value of the 99th percentile of a normal reference population to determine whether there had been a heart attack?” Ms Orr said.

Ms Troup replied in the affirmative.

Ms Orr then noted Mr Kell’s comments in the letter that CommInsure’s decision to select the 11 May 2014 as the effective date of the change had no robust rationale, given the joint report was published in 2012.

She then noted the letter said CommInsure’s conduct was unreasonably slow in responding to the changes in medical practice, that it was on notice that the standard was to be updated and had not done that even three years after the joint report was published, and that seven other insurers had updated their definition by 11 May 2014.

“While this is not contrary to the law, it is ASIC’s view that this has unfairly impacted on some consumers and better practice would be to select an earlier date,” Ms Orr said.

Let The Battles Commence

The latest in the class actions against the big beasts of the finance sector

Please consider supporting our work via Patreon ;

Please share this post to help to spread the word about the state of things….

Banking Strategy
Banking Strategy
Let The Battles Commence
Loading
/

Why AMP and IOOF went rogue

From The Conversation.

The ‘M’ in AMP stood for Mutual. Like another former mutual, IOOF, it was owned by, and set up to benefit, its members.

Both AMP and IOOF were presented with draft findings that they acted against the interests of their members at the conclusion of the round five hearings of the Royal Commission into Banking and Financial Services.

Although both are now purely commercial organisations, each has marketed itself as different from the others because of its cooperative history and founding ethos.

So what went wrong?

The early twentieth century German sociologist Max Weber argued the culture of an organisation was the product of its history, institutional structure and a consciously held shared ethos of its members. It was a different view to that of mainstream economists who these days assume organisations attempt to maximise profits and that of so-called behavioural economists who assume cognitive biases make decision making less rational.

In his book the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism Weber outlined the ways in which the ascetic sensibilities of the Protestant sects had influenced the growth of commerce in post reformation Northern Europe and 19th century America. They were concerned with thrift as much as with profit.

The ‘P’ in AMP stood for Providence. The AMP was set up to help its members save.

Disengagement, demutalisation and corporatisation changed AMP and IOOF forever

The move away from the government provision of services in the 1970s and Margaret Thatcher’s famous claim in the 1980s that there was “no such thing as society” saw a move away from mutuals and cooperatives in tandem with a move away from thrift.

In the 1990s AMP and IOOF ‘demutualised’, becoming companies listed on the sharemarket. Value that had been accumulated for generations was turned into tradable shares. Members who voted for the change were accused of intergenerational theft. Those who didn’t feel the least bit thrifty cashed-out by selling their shares.

Laws were changed to make it easier.

From a Weberian perspective the current governance problems of AMP and IOOF can in part be attributed to abandoning of the original founding ascetic ideal in favour of an unconstrained focus on profit maximisation for the benefit of shareholders rather than members.

The change in the culture of such organisations in Australia and overseas was accelerated by decisions to put independent directors and executives with “commercial savvy” on boards.

Turning back the clock won’t work

While Weber suggests organisations founded on a particular set of values can be highly disciplined the process of demutalisation/listing can create the conditions for misconduct. Appointing directors and outside managers who have no understanding of the mutual’s ideal allows an aggressive commercial culture to take root. The argument can be extended to former public sector corporations such as the Commonwealth Bank.

Despite calls to wind back the clock very few former cooperatives or public sector entities have. Once they have taken even a half step to corporatisation, as did Telstra, the Commonwealth Bank and the Murray Goulburn Cooperative, the die has been cast. The organisation and its ethos has changed.

Appointing high profile directors and executive directors with CVs that include community involvement is only going to paper over the change.

What might work

Mutual organisations are not misconduct and misstep free. They are vulnerable to ‘groupthink’ in which managers back each other up in order to aviod disharmony.

But commercial organisations that prioritise profits create incentives for managers to rationalise away breaking the law in order to lift short-term profitability or boost share prices and bonuses.

If he were alive today Weber might suggest subjecting such organisations to increased and more effective regulatory scrutiny and increased internal and external democratic accountability would be a necessary first step to improve governance.

Weber might very well argue the Banking Royal Commission itself is helping the community forge a new ethos grounded in community expectations about corporate conduct and purpose, buttressed by strong laws to back them up that will guide individual conduct and organisational governance.

CBA says breaking the law was an ‘honest mistake’

CBA has rejected claims it broke the law, pointing to an obscure loophole in the Criminal Code and stating that it was “genuinely of the belief” that it was doing the right thing.

Great legal minds are trying to find ways to explain the banks conduct and avoid the worst potential consequences! This from InvestorDaily:

Earlier this month, Colonial First State (CFS) executive general manager Linda Elkins faced the royal commission, where she was questioned about CBA’s handling of the MySuper transition.

From 1 January 2014, employers could only make default contributions to a registrable superannuation entity (RSE) offering a MySuper product.

Counsel assisting Michael Hodge established in his questions to Ms Elkins that CBA had breached the law 15,000 times by receiving default contributions into high-fee-paying accounts after 1 January 2014.

RSEs were also given a deadline of 1 July 2017 to transfer existing accrued default accounts (ADAs) to an approved MySuper product.

Mr Hodge noted that the contravention of s.29WA of the SIS Act is a strict liability offence, a point that was highlighted by CBA in its latest submission to the Hayne inquiry.

“However, it should be noted that in determining whether or not an offence has actually occurred, consideration would need to be given to the defence of mistake of fact available in section 6.1 of the Criminal Code in respect of strict liability offences,” the bank said.

“This is particularly the case here where CFSIL was genuinely of the belief that the members for whom the s.29WA breach occurred were in fact ‘choice’ members who fell outside the requirements of s.29WA and that it was only after engagement with APRA that it understood that the regulator was of a different view.”

In June 2014,  the board of CFS was told by management that APRA had requested it accelerate the transition for 60,000 ADA members, the royal commission heard.

Moving the 60,000 into lower-fee MySuper products would have the effect of turning off grandfathered commissions for advisers, the royal commission heard.

CFS, like other retail super providers, was eager to have ADA clients make an “investment decision” so that they would be considered a ‘choice’ member and therefore ineligible for transfer to a MySuper product.

In Mr Hodge’s submission to the commission following the fifth round of hearings, he stated that it is open to the commission to find that additional breaches occurred.

In response, CBA has stated that “there is no evidence before the commission to suggest that the failure to pay contributions of a subset of FirstChoice Personal members into a MySuper product was anything other than a genuine misunderstanding about the scope of s.29WA and its impact on particular cohorts of members, which CFSIL came to learn APRA did not agree with.”

“CFSIL believed that these members of FirstChoice Personal were choice members, to whom s.29WA did not apply.

“That honest mistake does not excuse CFSIL’s breach of the SIS Act provisions and s.912A(1)(c) of the Corporations Act as it has properly conceded, but it does tell against a finding of a failure to do all things necessary to provide services efficiently, honestly and fairly.”

APRA tells Hayne the ‘threat’ of litigation is sufficient

The prudential regulator has defended its powers after the royal commission questioned its preference for working “behind closed doors” and failure to take legal action against rogue funds,via InvestorDaily.

The fifth round of the royal commission saw APRA deputy chair Helen Rowell grilled by counsel assisting Michael Hodge QC. Ms Rowell disagreed with Hodge’s suggestion that APRA works “behind closed doors” but admitted the that no corporate trustee has been required to give an enforceable undertaking in relation to superannuation in the last 10 years.

“The fact that no litigation was commenced does not mean that further remediation and proceedings are foreclosed,” APRA said in its submission. “APRA actively considered taking proceedings in the IOOF case.

“APRA accepts that there are legitimate questions as to whether a decision to litigate may achieve a result with wider deterrence effect as indicated in counsel assisting’s submissions. This issue will be the subject of further submissions by APRA on the policy and general questions posed by the commission following round 5.

“In APRA’s view, having the power to take litigation or other action is important to achieve the necessary changes and responses from entities without necessarily having to take that action in all cases. That is, the ‘threat’ of potential action facilitates the achievement of appropriate outcomes, which is APRA’s focus.”

APRA said the matter will be taken up further in its submissions on policy and general questions.

‘Fees for no service’

During her testimony on 17 August, Ms Rowell was asked whether APRA had received any suggestion from ASIC that ASIC will commence public enforcement action in relation to ‘fees for no service’.

“I don’t know the answer to that question,” Ms Rowell said.

In its submission, APRA agreed that charging fees for no service or charging fees to deceased members was “unacceptable”.

“However, what the most appropriate response is will depend on the context of the particular event,” APRA said.

“Where for example an RSE licensee itself identifies an instance of inappropriately charged fees, reports it promptly to APRA and engages with the relevant regulator (whether that be ASIC or APRA) in developing a remediation plan, APRA’s focus will properly be on whether the remediation plan is sufficient and whether the RSE licensee has systems in place designed to prevent future breaches.

“On the other hand, where RSE licensees do not promptly acknowledge and remedy issues, APRA can rely on the possible breaches of s 52 or s 62 to press the RSE licensee to take appropriate remedial and preventative action.”

APRA said the issue of ‘fees for no service’ impacts on the regulatory spheres of both ASIC and APRA.

“The ultimate causes of action for the misconduct identified may be different as between ASIC and APRA, but they will have the same factual substratum. APRA and ASIC share information and coordinate their activities in relation to the issue of fees for no service. APRA does not agree that it is incumbent on it to act earlier or separately from ASIC in such matters, when ASIC action may be achieving the common regulatory objective of appropriate remediation to affected members and/or where there may be other actions in train.”

Royal Commission Moves On To Insurance

The Royal Commission in Financial Services Misconduct has announced that the sixth round of public hearings will focus on the Insurance Industry and will be held in Melbourne from Monday 10 September to Friday 21 September.   AMP, CommInsure, IAG and Youi are among the case studies to be considered. More grief for the industry we suspect as more bad behaviour is uncovered!

The sixth round of public hearings will consider issues associated with the sale and design of life insurance and general insurance products, the handling of claims under life insurance and general insurance policies, and the administration of life insurance by superannuation trustees. The hearings will also consider the appropriateness of the current regulatory regime for the insurance industry.

The Commission presently intends to deal with these issues for the purposes of the public hearings by reference to the case studies set out below. These include the natural disaster case studies that were originally to have been examined in the fourth round of public hearings. Entities are named in alphabetical order and not in the order in which the evidence of those entities will be heard.

  Topic Case Studies
1. Life insurance
  • AMP
  • ClearView
  • CommInsure
  • Freedom Insurance
  • REST
  • TAL
2. General insurance
  • AAI (Suncorp)
  • Allianz
  • IAG
  • Youi
3. Regulatory regime
  • Code Governance Committee
  • Financial Services Council
  • Insurance Council of Australia

During the hearings, evidence will also be given by consumers of their particular experiences. The entities that are the subject of consumer evidence will be informed by the Commission.

Time, money and ASIC ‘impeded’ APRA

The main issue with taking legal action against rogue super funds is that the process costs time and money, APRA has told the royal commission, via Investor Daily.

APRA’s Helen Rowell was the first witness to take the stand on Friday 17 August, where counsel assisting Michael Hodge was quick to try and gain insight into APRA’s role as a regulator of the $2.6 trillion superannuation sector.

Mr Hodge asked whether APRA would ever commence litigation against trustees, to which Ms Rowell explained that this is a “potential” action, but that other methods would be preferable, such as an enforceable undertaking.

One of the criticisms that has been made by the Productivity Commission in its draft report of APRA is that the “behind closed doors” nature of its activities is not effective for achieving what Mr Hodge called “general deterrence”.

Ms Rowell disagreed that APRA works behind closed doors but admitted the that no corporate trustee has been required to give an enforceable undertaking in relation to superannuation in the last 10 years.

In her statement, which was referenced by Mr Hodge during his questioning, the APRA deputy chair was asked a question by the Commission to explain any practical limitations or impediments on APRA seeking disqualification orders pursuant to section 126H of the SIS Act.

Ms Rowell’s statement included three impediments.

The first impediment is the resources and expense of gathering sufficient and admissible evidence in the form that would be required by a court. She noted that APRA does not have power to recoup costs of an investigation.

“The second point you make is the legal costs of the court process,” Mr Hodge read. “And then the third point is about the length of time involved with court processes.”

Mr Hodge asked Ms Rowell what the basis is for her judgment that court processes take a long time.

“Our previous experience in dealing with matters through relevant tribunals such as the AAT and observation of other court processes that occur in the wider financial sector,” she replied.

However, Mr Hodge highlighted that APRA hasn’t had any experience dealing with superannuation companies in the courts in the last 10 years.

APRA ‘waiting’ for ASIC

Later, Mr Hodge turned to the question of responsibility. The counsel assisting was eager to identify what action APRA was taking when breaches occur.

“Is there a limitation period on commencing a civil penalty proceeding for a breach of the sole purpose test?”

“I don’t know,” Ms Rowell replied.

Mr Hodge then asked whether APRA had received any suggestion from ASIC that ASIC will commence public enforcement action in relation to ‘fees for no service’.

“I don’t know the answer to that question,” Ms Rowell said.

Mr Hodge asked if it is satisfactory, from the perspective of APRA as a matter of general deterrence, that no proceeding has ever been commenced against a trustee on the basis of a contravention of the sole purpose test where the trustee is deducting money from members’ accounts and paying it to related party advisers who are not providing a service.

“I think it’s too early to form that conclusion because that work is ongoing and APRA has not made any final decisions about what action it may or may not take ultimately in relation to that matter,” Ms Rowell said, adding that APRA is allowing ASIC to complete its work and review.

“When you say APRA is waiting to see what ASIC will do,” Mr Hodge probed, “has there been any consideration at all within APRA in relation to this issue to date?”

Ms Rowell responded: “There has been discussions with individual entities and – on the matter and seeking to get a complete understanding of the issues as they pertain to the individual entities. There would be general discussions occurring at APRAs internal committees about, you know, what the issue was and what was being done to address it, and – and those sorts of things. As I said, I don’t believe that we have made any conclusions at this stage as to what further action, if any, we might wish to take.”