4. The assignment must also contain appropriate referencing in the form of footnotes and bibliography in conformity with the AGLC. The bibliography must include all materials that you have cited. 5. You must use IRAC. 6. The word limit is 2500+/- 10%. The word limit should exclude footnotes and bibliography. 7. See the marking rubric on Canvas for more information for each grade band. QUESTION MapleLeaf Investments & Advisory Services Ltd (MapleLeaf) holds an Australian Financial Services License (AFSL) and has recently initiated the "GreenFuture Fund," a managed investment scheme that invests in renewable energy, focusing particularly on speculative early- stage solar energy startups. Sophie Turner, a 68-year-old retiree diagnosed with early-stage Alzheimer's disease, was drawn to the GreenFuture Fund after attending a promotional seminar hosted by MapleLeaf. Sophie's condition moderately impairs her decision-making capabilities, making complex financial decisions particularly challenging. At the seminar, James Peterson, a financial adviser from MapleLeaf, provided attendees with promotional materials that included misleading exponential growth charts and testimonials from supposedly satisfied investors. During his presentation, James portrayed the GreenFuture Fund as "practically risk-free" with "guaranteed returns" of 15% annually, targeting retirees seeking stable income. Sophie, intrigued by the presentation, scheduled a private meeting with James to discuss her potential investment. During this meeting, James reiterated the claims about the fund's performance and safety. He rushed through the consultation, did not ask about Sophie's health condition, financial needs, or her understanding of the risks associated with startup investments. What is more, James also failed to disclose his own financial incentives linked to promoting the fund. Three months after Sophie invested a substantial portion of her retirement savings, the GreenFuture Fund reported significant losses due to the poor performance of the involved startups, some of which were nearing insolvency. An investigation revealed that the fund's due diligence was grossly inadequate, and James's conflicts of interest, as well as the misleading promotional materials used during the seminar and private meeting, were exposed. Sophie, now facing considerable financial distress, seeks to understand her legal rights with a particular focus on the conduct of MapleLeaf, the management of the GreenFuture Fund, and the advice provided by James. It was also revealed that: Despite the firm's responsibility to uphold stringent oversight and compliance standards, MapleLeaf demonstrated significant shortcomings: MapleLeaf utilized promotional materials that prominently featured exaggerated growth projections and testimonials from non-existent investors during seminars targeted at retirees. These materials falsely depicted the GreenFuture Fund as offering "guaranteed returns" with minimal risks. James Peterson, a financial adviser at MapleLeaf, received undisclosed commissions from solar startups included in the GreenFuture Fund for directing investments to them. This situation was neither managed nor disclosed to investors. MapleLeaf failed to provide adequate training and supervision to its financial advisers. This lack of oversight allowed James to provide advice without proper ethical and legal considerations, leading to a breach of trust and compliance. James Peterson, during his interactions with Sophie Turner, a 68-year-old retiree with early-stage Alzheimer's, showcased multiple failures: In the private meeting with Sophie, James neglected to conduct a thorough analysis of Sophie's financial situation and needs. He rushed through the consultation, focusing solely on promoting the GreenFuture Fund without assessing its suitability for Sophie's circumstances. James repeatedly assured Sophie of the fund's safety and high returns without discussing the speculative nature of the investments and the high risks associated with startup ventures. With James's awareness of Sophie's condition (discussed briefly in their initial interaction but not factored into his advice), he failed to adjust his approach to acknowledge her vulnerability, thereby not fulfilling the heightened legal responsibilities required when advising clients with diminished capacity. During both the seminar and the private consultation, James reiterated misleading claims about the fund's performance and safety. The GreenFuture Fund, managed by MapleLeaf Investments & Advisory Services Pty Ltd, demonstrated significant governance and operational shortcomings, which not only compromised the fund's performance but also contravened multiple legal requirements. The investigation into the GreenFuture Fund's portfolio revealed that the due diligence performed on the invested solar startups was not only inadequate but almost non-existent. MapleLeaf had failed to verify the financial viability and operational stability of these startups, many of which were without any proven business models or viable products. The promotional materials suggested that the startups were market leaders in solar technology with secured patents and significant commercial engagements, which was categorically untrue and misleading to investors. The fund managers did not disclose the high-risk nature of investing in early-stage companies. The risk assessments that were supposed to be part of the investment strategy were either superficial or deliberately omitted. The fund's investment strategy, as described to investors, was to support stable, growth-oriented renewable energy companies. However, the actual investments were speculative and not aligned with this strategy, constituting a breach of the fund's stated objectives and investment mandate. The GreenFuture Fund's operations did not comply with the stringent compliance standards required for managed investment schemes. This includes failures in establishing an independent compliance committee to oversee fund operations and ensure alignment with legal and regulatory requirements. The fund managers were also stakeholders in some of the invested startups, a conflict of interest that was not disclosed to the investors. The fund's assets were disproportionately allocated to high-risk ventures without adequate diversification strategies, exposing the fund and its investors to undue financial risks. The fund maintained insufficient liquidity reserves which put the fund at risk of not being able to meet the redemption requests of investors. The board overseeing the GreenFuture Fund lacked members with expertise in renewable energy investments, resulting in poor governance and oversight of fund activities. There was a systematic failure to provide timely and accurate communications to investors regarding the performance and management of the fund, especially as the startups began failing. REQUIRED: Discuss all legal issues raised in this question. Apply relevant Australian law. Relevant legal concepts/ issues from weeks 10-11 are examined. Total 50 marks.

Concepts:

- Concept of companies and the Rules of a company

- Dealing with third parties and how does a company enter into contracts

- Member remedies

- Management and Board of Director

- Director Duties

- Robo director

- Insolvency

- Corporate Finance: Debt and Equity

Please use all that and these from week 10 and 11:

- Corporate Finance: The role of Financial Adviser: Disclosure Requirements

- Managed Investment Schemes; Consumer Protection under the ASIC Act

This is the rubric:

LAW2450 Final Assignment Criteria Legal Issues 5to >3.99 pts HD The issue is fully, clearly, and accurately stated. The student recognised all main issues. No omissions. No irrelevant issue. 3.99 to >3.49 pts DI The issue is for the most part clearly and accurately stated. No irrelevant issue. Ratings 3.49 to >2.99 pts CR The issue is moderately clear and accurately stated. The student recognised most issues, however some minor issues are missed. No irrelevant issue. 2.99 to >2.49 pts PA The issue is incomplete, unclear and/or inaccurate. No irrelevant issue. 2.49 to =0 pts NN The legal issue is not identified. The identified issue is not relevant. Pts 5 pts Rules 5to >3.99 pts HD The legal rule is accurately and fully quoted. All relevant case law and/or statutory provisions are cited. No omissions. No irrelevant rules of law. 3.99 to =3.49 pts DI The legal rule is accurately and quoted. All relevant case law and/or statutory provisions are cited. However, there are some minor omissions such as mispelled names of the parties in case law. All relevant sub- sections are cited without omission. No irrelevant rules of law. 3.49 to >2.99 pts CR The legal rule is mostly accurate and mostly fully quoted. However, there are some minor omissions such as sub- sections of statutory provisions or mispelled names of the paries in case law. No irrelevant rules of law. 2.99 to >2.49 pts PA The guoting of the legal rule is somewhat incomplete or inaccurate. Some relevant case law and/or statutory provisions are cited. No irrelevant rules of law. 2.49 to =0 pts NN MNo guoting of the legal rule. Irrelevant rules of law are present. The quoting of the legal rule is incomplete or 5 pts inaccurate. Irrelevant rules of law are present. Application 30 to >23.99 pts 23.99 to > 20.99 pts 20.99 to >17.99 pts 17.99 to >14.99 pts 14.99 to >0 pts Aligned HD DI CR PA NN with Aol6 The discussion The discussion is a The discussion is an The discussion The discussion - Critically is a clear and clear and analysis of most of considers the of the facts engaged comprehensive comprehensive the relevant legal application of some does not refer (Evaluate analysis of all analysis of all principles and their of the relevant legal to any relevant and relevant legal relevant legal rules application to the rules to the key legal rules. integrate rules and their and their facts to facts but the There is no existing application to application to the substantially arguments are not analysis or a ideas, the facts to the facts to the support logical clear or are student writes engaging argument about argument about arguments about incomplete. There an irrelevant critically) how the Issue(s) how the Issue(s) will how the Issue(s) will is a tendency to application. will be resolved. be resolved. The be resolved. The apply the legal rule There is little The student student shows clear student shows a unidentified in the or no analysis. shows clear understanding of reasonable legal issue. The Evidence of understanding subject matter, understanding of work shows "bombing" - of subject accurately applies the subject matter attempts to apply copying from matter, relevant legal with minor relevant legal notes without accurately principles. The insignificant principles with giving much applies relevant work shows strong mistakes, and a some considerable thought as to legal principles. analysis with reasonable attempt mistakes. Analysis what is The work shows relevant cases cited to analyze the legal lacks depth and relevant and 30 pts strong analysis and discussed. No problem(s) by there is tendency to what is not. with relevant irrelevant applying relevant repeat the facts The application cases cited and application. law. The student outlined in the shows a discussed. shows a reasonable question. The general lack of Student attempt to student copies understanding compares case structure legal unnecessary slabs of subject law with the arguments. No from the facts, matter and facts of the mere repetitions of however there is no legal principles. question and facts. No irrelevant irrelevant There are introduces application. discussion. names of additional parties which arguments are not where included in the appropriate. The question. student's work displays original thinking. The answer is well- structured. No irrelevant application.Conclusion 5 to >3.99 pts 3.99 to >3.49 pts 3.49 to >2.99 pts 2.99 to >2.49 pts 2.49 to >0 pts HD DI CR PA NN The Conclusion is The Conclusion is The Conclusion is The Conclusion is no Conclusion well supported by supported by supported by supported by or the arguments in the arguments in the most of the some of the Conclusion is Application section Application arguments and arguments but not supported and clearly explains section and substantially main finding is by the how those explains how addresses the restated in the arguments in arguments address those arguments Issue(s). No same way as in the application. 5 pts the Issue(s). The address the irrelevant the legal issue. No The conclusion conclusion Issue(s). No conclusion. irrelevant contradicts the provides a irrelevant conclusion. arguments recommendation. conclusion. and/or does not No irrelevant answer the conclusion. legal issue(s). Conclusion is irrelevant.English 5 to =3.99 pts HD Excellent English with clear concise writing. Mo spelling or punctuation errars. Excellent use of key terms. The work is properly referenced with bibliography. Mo reference to irrelevant discussion is present in the ANSWET. 3.99 to =3.49 pts ol Organised structure throughout; ideas organised logically with minor exceptions. Few minor spelling or punctuation errors. Key terms used with minor errors. The work is properly referenced with bibliography. Mo reference to irrelevant discussion is present in the answer. 3.49 to =2.99 pts CR Good English with clear writing. Language is clear and communicates complex ideas effectively, some grammar mistakes are evident, but they do not impede communication. The work is properly referenced with bibliocgraphy or some attempts to properly cite relevant legal sources are made. Mo reference Lo irrelevant discussion is present in the answer. 2.99 to >2.49 pts PA Few errors of spelling, punctuation etc; howewver, the student writes simple sentences EXOressing complete thoughts which can be understood in the context. The work is not properly referenced or referencing is incomplete. Bibliography is attached. No reference Lo irrelevant discussion is present in the answer. 2.49 to =0 pts NN Problems EXPressing ideas in English preclude understanding whal the student is trying to say. Mo referencing and no bibliography. There is 5 pts irrelevant discussion. Total Points: 50