One day, Elissa, Ivy's best friend, asked Ivy about her opinion in relation to the FOFA reform. The case involved the financial advise given to a retail client called Anna.Anna is struggling to meet her rent and bills this month as she has just purchased a new mobile phone to replace the one, she lost at a party last weekend. As she contemplated on what she was going to do, she sees an advertisement on Facebook by ABC Pty Ltd offering 'fast cash' within 48 hours and 'no credit check required'. She thinks this is a great idea and proceeds to put in her contact details on their website to obtain the cash rebate of $2000. The next day, Anna receives a phone call from Andrew an employee of ABC Pty Ltd. Andrew asks Anna a few questions about her age, occupation and income. Anna gave vague responses and said her income fluctuated and she was unsure. Andrew did not wish to ask further questions as he was hungry and wanted to go on his lunchbreak on time. He then proceeds to give Anna financial advice and advises her to switch her life insurance and superannuation policies to a new provider in order to receive the cash rebate. This is the first time Anna hears of this, as it is not mentioned on ABC PtyLtd's website, but she accepts, as she would like the extra cash. Advice fees are then charged out of Anna's superannuation funds and ABC Pty Ltd receives commission from the insurer and pays some of this to Anna as a cash rebate. Anna notices that her superannuation balance has dropped by 30%. ABC Pty Ltd holds an Australian financial services license (AFSL), which allows it to give advice about life insurance and superannuation products to its retail clients. Its internal policies mandate that its employees should always switch a client's insurance and superannuation policies to a company called "Insurance & Super." Since the Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) reforms were introduced, ABC has held two training sessions for the employees and authorized representatives about their financial adviser obligations. Elissa asks Ivy's opinion about the following issues:

A) Has Andrew breached the "best interests duty" and "appropriate advice duty" under ss 961B (1) and/or 961G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)? Is there any chance that Andrew can rely on s 961(B)(2) as a defence in regard to his conduct? Please explain why/why not in reference to the above facts.

B) If Andrew breaches the best interests' duty, in your opinion, is there any chance that Andrew can rely on s 961(B)(2) as a defence regarding his conduct?

C) Assuming Andrew breaches s 961B (1), what is the legal consequence for ABC Pty Ltd? Hint: refer to ss 961K (2) and 961L and consider how they could be applied to ABC Pty Ltd.

D) Elissa reads the Banking Royal Commission Report, which calls for the Government to abolish the "safe harbour" provision but she is not sure if that's a good idea from a practical perspective. She asks Ivy to share her opinions about the Commissioner's recommendation.