Banking royal commission: sacking disparity forces AMP into peace talks with Brian Salter

AMP is talking to lawyers representing ex-general counsel Brian Salter, after apparent inconsistencies in his sacking.

Former AMP general counsel Brian Salter. Picture: Hollie Adams

AMP has opened talks with lawyers representing its former general counsel, Brian Salter, after apparent inconsistencies emerged in the company’s reasons for ­sacking him and withholding ­remuneration.

The talks, believed to be aimed at avoiding litigation, come soon after the financial services giant’s own statements and internal documents appeared to raise questions about its stated reason for dismissing its top lawyer.

The talks are expected to focus on the board’s decision to withhold his deferred remuneration without an accompanying ­assertion of wrongdoing. Mr Salter earned $2.7 million last year. All but $785,000 consisted of bonuses.

He was dismissed on April 30 while AMP was grappling with the fallout from claims that it watered down an independent report produced by law firm Clayton Utz on unlawful conduct inside the company’s advice division.

Clayton Utz and Mr Salter have denied any wrongdoing but AMP announced his dismissal in a statement that pointed to his contact with the law firm while it was assembling its report. The company told the Australian ­Securities Exchange that its board and former chairman Catherine Brenner had been “unaware and disappointed” about the extent of Mr Salter’s interaction with Clayton Utz and the number of changes that had been made to the report.

But last Friday, the royal commission into financial services released internal AMP emails showing Mr Salter acted several times as Ms Brenner’s middleman, passing on questions and suggestions to Clayton Utz partner Nick Mavrakis, who produced the report.

Ms Brenner had also contacted Mr Mavrakis directly and was provided with drafts of the report that AMP later presented to the Australian Securities & Investments Commission, the emails show.

The same April 30 statement announcing Mr Salter’s dismissal told the ASX Ms Brenner was also leaving the company and the board was satisfied she had done nothing wrong.

On the same day that Ms Brenner’s involvement with Clayton Utz became public, AMP endorsed the veracity of the report that had triggered Mr Salter’s removal.

While AMP had told the ASX on Monday last week it had been unaware and disappointed about Mr Salter’s involvement in the report, by Friday its official ­assessment of the report was laudatory.

It told the royal commission the report was “uncompromisingly direct and comprehensive”.

“Irrespective of Mr Salter’s involvement with the production of the report, there is no evidence before the royal commission that Mr Salter made any changes that Clayton Utz did not agree with, or that Clayton Utz does not stand behind the report,” the AMP submission says.

“In fact, the evidence shows that Clayton Utz had carefully verified the accuracy of statements made in the report.”

Another subject that is expected to arise during AMP’s talks with Mr Salter’s lawyers is the contrast between the concern on April 30 about his contact with Clayton Utz and the contents of the letter appointing the law firm to conduct the investigation. On June 5 last year Ms Brenner provided Clayton Utz with a letter that instructed the law firm to ­interact on a day-to-day basis with Mr Salter and AMP’s head of advice, Jack Regan.

Counsel assisting the royal commission, Rowena Orr QC, has told commissioner Ken Hayne that it is open for him to find that AMP’s conduct in relation to the Clayton Utz report breached provisions of the Corporations Act that make it an ­offence to mislead ASIC.

Clayton Utz, which provided the report to AMP rather than ASIC, has denied watering it down to remove references to unlawful conduct. “It is disappointing that it has been mis­reported that Clayton Utz was in some way involved in misleading ASIC. That is simply not true,” chief executive partner Rob Cutler said in a statement on Friday.

“At no stage were the findings compromised by AMP or any other person.”