Clime Investment Management has firmly rejected allegations of a formal ASIC investigation following a misleading media report, clarifying that only a preliminary inquiry occurred.
- ASIC confirms no formal investigation into Clime
- Media article contained false and misleading claims
- Clime denies involvement with collapsed First Guardian and Shield funds
- No marketing fees paid to Venture Egg advisors
- Clime defends due diligence on Secure Bailment Services
Background to the Controversy
Clime Investment Management Limited (ASX, CIW) has publicly responded to a recent article published by The Australian that alleged a formal investigation by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) into the company. The article, dated 24 October 2025, made several claims that Clime describes as false, misleading, and damaging to its reputation.
Specifically, the article suggested that ASIC was conducting a formal probe into Clime’s operations, and implied questionable financial dealings involving collapsed funds and marketing practices. Clime has categorically denied these allegations, emphasizing that ASIC has confirmed no such formal investigation exists.
ASIC’s Clarification and Preliminary Inquiry
Following the publication, Clime’s legal team engaged directly with senior ASIC officers. ASIC clarified in writing that the only contact made was a preliminary telephone inquiry on 23 October regarding a disclosure document and target market determination related to one of Clime’s funds. This inquiry is routine and far from a formal investigation.
Clime has criticized The Australian for reporting the inquiry as an established investigation, calling it an extraordinary misrepresentation. The company’s lawyers have formally requested corrections from both ASIC and the media outlet, highlighting the misleading nature of the original report.
Refuting Additional Allegations
Beyond the ASIC-related claims, Clime addressed other insinuations made in the article. The company denied any receipt or investment of funds into the collapsed First Guardian or Shield funds, labeling such implications as false. It also refuted claims that it paid marketing contributions or fees to Venture Egg advisors to influence fund allocations.
Furthermore, Clime defended its relationship with Secure Bailment Services (SBS), a partner mentioned negatively in the article. The company stated it has conducted extensive due diligence on SBS, regularly reviews transactions, and has no concerns about SBS’s loan book or operations.
Addressing Inappropriate References and Upholding Standards
Clime also took issue with the article’s references to the ethnicity of a shareholder and the source of capital for a financial product, calling these remarks irrelevant and inconsistent with fair journalistic standards. The company reaffirmed its commitment to diversity and inclusion, valuing the contributions of professionals and investors from varied backgrounds.
Chairman John Abernethy and Managing Director Michael Baragwanath have made themselves available for enquiries, underscoring the company’s transparency and willingness to engage with stakeholders amid the controversy.
Bottom Line?
Clime’s swift rebuttal highlights the risks of premature media narratives and sets the stage for scrutiny on journalistic standards and regulatory communications.
Questions in the middle?
- Will ASIC provide further updates or escalate the preliminary inquiry?
- How will The Australian respond to Clime’s request for correction?
- Could reputational damage from the article impact Clime’s investor confidence?