$20 Bonus + 25% OFF
Securing Higher Grades Costing Your Pocket? Book Your Assignment at The Lowest Price Now!

Analyzes The Case Of ASIC V Citigroup

tag 0 Download7 Pages / 1,749 Words tag Add in library Click this icon and make it bookmark in your library to refer it later. GOT IT


Discuss about the Analyzes the Case of ASIC v Citigroup.



This report analyzes the case of ASIC v Citigroup (2007) that was about fiduciary duty. Citigroup is an American based multinational investment banking and financial service provider. Along with this, this report provides the detail introduction of the case happened between ASIC and Citigroup. Furthermore, it identifies and analyzes the duties breached in the case and address the reason why the duties were breached.  Eventually, the report provides a detailed analysis of the finding and final decision of the court in regarding the given case and reason behind the given decision.

Case Introduction:

This case study is about the role of relationship clause in setting a contractual obligation and describing the duties and obligation of the parties. This case is about City Group. City Group operated its business through different unit and divisions such as investment banking, equity trading, equity capital market and others. The employees in Investment Banking Division and Equity Capital Market were provided with the market sensitive data and information while the employees in equity were not treated so (Ferguson and Ma, 2014). The organization built a wall for restricting the communication and flow of information among the different departments and units. The equity employees of the organization bought shares in Patrick Corporation Limited on Australian Security Exchange. The purchase was taken place while IBD and ECM of City Group were doing act for Toll.

The ASIC commended proceed against Citigroup for this reason. Along with this, ASIC sued against Citigroup for breaching its obligation and fiduciary duty (Ferguson and Ma, 2014). Citigroup was an advisor but it positioned itself in disputes with Toll by purchasing share of Patrick. This caused the fiduciary relationship between Toll and Citigroup. The interest of the Citigroup was conflicted with its duty of loyalty to Toll for financial advising. It means Citigroup had infringed the statutory and legal provisions that regulate the financial service providers (Ferguson and Ma, 2014). However, Toll decided to keep the Citigroup as its financial advisor clearly excepting the fiduciary relationship between them. The company accepted that Citigroup has been kept as a sole advisor to the company. ASIC (Australian Security and Investment Commission) put efforts to resolve and remove the effects of this clause by presenting an argument that relationship between Toll and Citigroup should have to be taken into account to determine the existence of the fiduciary relationship. 

Breach of duty:

Breach of duty is a legal and statutory situation or disturbance that occurs when one party in the contract fails to perfume its duty of care to another party. The incompliance with the legal and ethical obligation and regulations causes a breach of duty. The duty of care means the obligation imposed on the individual or parties involved in the contract for acting considering the welfare and wellbeing of the others concerned to the project or contract (Braid, 2013).  Therefore, in this case, the fiduciary duty and insider trading are two main issues. The Citigroup was alleged for breaching the duty of care and duty of loyalty. The duty of loyalty is the duty and responsibility of the directors and managers to be not engaged in transactions in which its personal interest conflicts with others. It is said to be breached when an organization takes business opportunities and advantages from other businesses (Carson, 2015). At the same time, the duty of care of Citigroup was to not to be involved in the actions and transaction that could not harm to Toll. The fiduciary duty can be defined as higher standard determined for the duty of care. The fiduciary relationship is where one party depends on other for fiduciary relation (Jade, 2017). 

The Australian Security and Investment Commission did not sue against ET for possessing the insider information and using it for purchasing the shares. The main issue was that the Citigroup infringed the fiduciary duty under the section 912A (1), Corporation Act, 2001 (ASIC, 2016). According to this section, the fiduciary duty is the duty of the directors and managers to not to do any act that might cause a loss for others. Furthermore, Citigroup found guilty of breaching the provisions defined in section 1043 H of Corporation Act, 2001 and section 12 DA under ASIC Act. Along with this, the Citigroup has infringed the provisions related to insider trading defined in section of1043A of Corporation Act, 2001 (Seeto, 2017). ASIC alleged that employees ET division was exposed to the internal information of the organization that led to the insider trading. This was for the personal interest of Citigroup. Therefore, the AISC alleged on Citigroup that the company was engaged in the insider trading and breached its duty and responsibility to seeking organization.

The investment banking, equity trading, and equity capital market are three units and divisions of the Citigroup. The Citigroup breached the duty of care and duty of loyalty as there was a Chinese wall between the units that restrict the flow of information between them. Along with this, ET was not exposed to the information. The employees of the purchased the share of the Patrick about which the investment banking was not aware (Ferguson and Ma, 2014). ET showed its personal financial conflicts while IB had to protect the financial interest of the Toll. But the interest of ET and conflicted with the interest of Toll. This caused a breach of the duty of care. Along with this, The IB failed to protect the interest of Toll and failed to perform its duty to Toll. This was said to be a breach of loyalty.


Analysis of Court decision and reasons for the decisions:

In the case of Australian Securities and Investments Commission vs. Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Limited, federal court has rejected the ASIC claim against the Citigroup. The court declared that Citigroup is not contravened its obligations and did not breach the provision of corporation act. Along with this, Citigroup also did not breach the insider trading provisions of corporation act. The ASIC sought the $1 million from the Citigroup for the breach of insider trading, Chinese walls it is because Investment banking division of the Citigroup was the advisor of Toll for the takeover of Patrick and Toll Holdings proposed a takeover before takeover of Patrick. The Peter Jacobson justice of federal court ruled against the ASIC to pay the legal fees of Citigroup (Jacobson, 2007). In the case, it was founded that Citigroup did not breach the insider trading provisions and obligations of corporation act. In this case, ASIC claimed against the Citigroup that Citigroup breach the fiduciary relationship, did not have arrangements to manage the conflicts, Citigroup also conducts the deceptive and misleading, and Citigroup also breached the insider trading provisions. But federal court rejected all the claims made by ASIC against the Citigroup.

The court also declared that Citigroup did not breach the corporation act in the business activities. The main reason for rejecting the first claim was that Citigroup and Toll are not in a fiduciary relationship because Citigroup act as an independent contractor and it has not capacity of fiduciary. Therefore, no fiduciary relationship exists between contact (mandate letter) of Citigroup and Toll (Ritchie, 2008). At the same time, the court also rejected the second claim of ASIC that Citigroup did not have arrangements to manage the conflicts because company was not involved in a fiduciary relationship and has Chinese walls for the arrangements of management conflicts. The Citigroup has Chinese walls for the arrangements of conflicts as each department of company is separate from each other, monitoring by compliance officers, and has disciplinary sections in each department for breaching the wall.

Furthermore, it is founded that Citibank and Toll were not in a fiduciary relationship and based on this company is also not involved in misleading and deceptive conduct. Moreover, the claim of ASIC that Citigroup breaches the provisions of insider trading in corporations act. But court also rejected this claim of ASIC and declared that Citigroup is not involved in insider trading, ASIC claimed that Citigroup engaged in insider trading when company purchases the shares of Patrick which were sold by the public (Ritchie, 2008). ASIC also stated that trader also told to Citigroup to stop buying of shares from public that indicates that company was acting for the takeover of Patrick. In order to prove that Citigroup was involved in insider trading, ASIC needs to prove that trader was the employee of Citigroup, but ASIC was unable to prove the case. Therefore, based on above analysis it can be said that Citigroup was success in this case and does not breach any provisions or duty of corporations act.                  


From the analysis of above case, it can be concluded that Citigroup has various business divisions such as Investment Banking division (IBD), equities trading department, and Equity Capital Markets division. The Investment banking division was the advisor of Toll and Toll was announced its bid for Patrick for its takeover but Equities trading department purchased shares in Patrick Corporation Limited. In this case, ASIC claimed that Citigroup breaches the duty of care, loyalty, provision of insider trading, and fiduciary duties. But federal court rejected the claims of ASIC that Citigroup did not breach any duty or provision of the corporations act because company has physical separation by departments.



ASIC (2016). 07-171 Decision in ASIC v Citigroup. Retrieved from


Carson, B. (2015). Is Your Financial Advisor a Fiduciary? Retrieved from

Ferguson, D. and  Ma, C. (2014). Addisons Contractual Interpretation  Series – Relationship clauses – can fiduciary obligations be avoided? Retrieved from


Jade (2017). Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Limited (ACN 113 114 832) (No. 4)  [2007] FCA 963. Retrieved from

Ritchie, T. (2008). ASIC v Citigroup: An Amber Light For Proprietary Trading. Retrieved from:

Seeto, G. (2017). ASIC v Citigroup - The compliance implications. Retrieved from

Download Sample

Get 100% money back after download, simply upload your unique content* of similar no. of pages or more. We verify your content and once successfully verified 100% value credited to your wallet within 7 days.

Upload Unique Document

Document Under Evaluation

Get Credits into Your Wallet

*The content must not be available online or in our existing Database to qualify as unique.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

My Assignment Help. (2018). Analyzes The Case Of ASIC V Citigroup . Retrieved from

"Analyzes The Case Of ASIC V Citigroup ." My Assignment Help, 2018,

My Assignment Help (2018) Analyzes The Case Of ASIC V Citigroup [Online]. Available from:
[Accessed 10 July 2020].

My Assignment Help. 'Analyzes The Case Of ASIC V Citigroup ' (My Assignment Help, 2018) <> accessed 10 July 2020.

My Assignment Help. Analyzes The Case Of ASIC V Citigroup [Internet]. My Assignment Help. 2018 [cited 10 July 2020]. Available from:

At, we are committed to deliver quality assignment assistance in the fastest way possible. To make our service delivery fast, we have hired subject matter experts to work on different subject specific assignments. We have hired experts who owe in-depth knowledge in their respective subjects. As per their expertise, they provide geography assignment help, Physics assignment help, Strategic assignment help, history assignment help, art architecture assignment help and assistance with other subjects as well.

Latest Business Law Samples

LAW101 Fundamentals Of Law

Download : 0 | Pages : 4

Answer: Negligence Issue:The issue that gave rise to this particular discussion is whether Stan has any rights to file a suit against Wendy for his own physical injury? Rule: Negligence is an act on part of an individual who tries to neglect his/ her duty of care that causes injury to another be it in physical form, mental or even economic. Negligence is deemed to be an act of carelessness on part of an individual that causes harm to an...

Read More arrow Tags: Australia 8 Fundamentals of Law Sttots College 

U50032 Coursework Assessment Information

Download : 0 | Pages : 7
  • Course Code: U50032
  • University: University Of Technology Sydney
  • Country: Australia

Answer: Introduction The company Carillon has been in news  because of its corporate failings. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the situation of Carillion which has been subjected to corporate failing in the light of directors’ duties and insolvency law in UK. The paper also provides the steps which stakeholders and shareholders of Carillion may have taken against the directors for their actions under company law. ...

Read More arrow

AB444A12 Programme: BTEC Higher National Diploma

Download : 0 | Pages : 20
  • Course Code: BUSN20016
  • University: CQ University
  • Country: Australia

Answer: Introduction: In the following report, an effort has been made to chalk out the tax environment of the UK. In pursuance of that the roles and responsibilities of the tax practitioners, the details of the documents required for the purpose of calculation and other matters like the capital gain tax and calculation of adjusted taxable profit have been properly discussed. TASK 1: The responsibility of the tax collection has been vested ...

Read More arrow

HI6027 Business And Corporate Law 5

Download : 0 | Pages : 6

Answers: 1 A sole trader is considered as an individual or any entity who practices a business alone. It is measured as the easiest method of occupation and the inexpensive procedure of the commerce where other than the sole trader no other person or entity shall be obligated for the profits incurred and the losses in the business. A Company is mentioned  as any body or organization that is devouring a separate individuality separately f...

Read More arrow Tags: Australia Rozelle 8 business and corporations law Holmes Institute 

HA2022 Business Law 4

Download : 0 | Pages : 7

Answer: 1: The national sporting organizations in the territory have maintained various rules or laws to maintain their organization. There are several sporting organizations such as the Australian Football League, National Rugby League and many others. The Directory of the Sports of Australia has restricted the particulars of these organizations, in addition to it is recognized the people of the organizations who are concerned in the improve...

Read More arrow Tags: Australia 8 business law Holmes Institute 

Save Time & improve Grade

Just share Requriment and get customize Solution.

We will use e-mail only for:

arrow Communication regarding your orders

arrow To send you invoices, and other billing info

arrow To provide you with information of offers and other benefits




Overall Rating



Our Amazing Features


On Time Delivery

Our writers make sure that all orders are submitted, prior to the deadline.


Plagiarism Free Work

Using reliable plagiarism detection software, only provide customized 100 percent original papers.


24 X 7 Live Help

Feel free to contact our assignment writing services any time via phone, email or live chat.


Services For All Subjects

Our writers can provide you professional writing assistance on any subject at any level.


Best Price Guarantee

Our best price guarantee ensures that the features we offer cannot be matched by any of the competitors.

Our Experts

Assignment writing guide
student rating student rating student rating student rating student rating 5/5

440 Order Completed

99% Response Time

Jack Arens


London, United Kingdom

Hire Me
Assignment writing guide
student rating student rating student rating student rating student rating 5/5

1692 Order Completed

98% Response Time

Alfred Dodd

PhD in Computer and Information Science with specialization in Database

Wellington, New Zealand

Hire Me
Assignment writing guide
student rating student rating student rating student rating student rating 5/5

1896 Order Completed

95% Response Time

Herman Berens

MSc in Psychology

London, United Kingdom

Hire Me
Assignment writing guide
student rating student rating student rating student rating student rating 5/5

798 Order Completed

97% Response Time

Benjamin Blakeman

MSc in Medical Technology

London, United Kingdom

Hire Me

FREE Tools


Plagiarism Checker

Get all your documents checked for plagiarism or duplicacy with us.


Essay Typer

Get different kinds of essays typed in minutes with clicks.


GPA Calculator

Calculate your semester grades and cumulative GPa with our GPA Calculator.


Chemical Equation Balancer

Balance any chemical equation in minutes just by entering the formula.


Word Counter & Page Calculator

Calculate the number of words and number of pages of all your academic documents.

Refer Just 5 Friends to Earn More than $2000

Check your estimated earning as per your ability




Your Approx Earning

Live Review

Our Mission Client Satisfaction

he service is really good , and i got the good writer as well because it seems reliable. However, the price is so expensive than others


User Id: 458240 - 10 Jul 2020


student rating student rating student rating student rating student rating

whenever i order essay they usually do a great job im really happy with the service provided


User Id: 343054 - 10 Jul 2020


student rating student rating student rating student rating student rating

i got a really good grade on this essay it was perfect just what i needed im really happy with the work


User Id: 343054 - 10 Jul 2020


student rating student rating student rating student rating student rating

thank you for the assignment work. I got a high B for the final grade. Excellent work


User Id: 447983 - 10 Jul 2020


student rating student rating student rating student rating student rating
callback request mobile
Have any Query?