Judges have power to manage competing class actions by picking a winner in a so-called beauty parade, the High Court has ruled, but there is no one size fits all approach to the decision, and the law firm that files first is not guaranteed the coveted prize.
The High Court has set a date for handing down its keenly anticipated judgment in a case that challenged the winner of a beauty contest of class actions against AMP, a decision expected to offer guidance on how courts should tackle the so-called multiplicity problem.
The parties in a class action against AMP over changes to its buyer of last resort policy have agreed to a communications protocol making settlement offers and for releases attached to BOLR payments that require exiting financial advisers to waive their claims in the litigation.
Lawyers behind a class action against AMP over changes to its buyer of last resort policy have told a court the parties can’t agree on releases attached to BOLR payments that require exiting financial advisers to waive their claims in the litigation.
That a first filed case should be the presumptive winner in a competition between class actions seemed a losing argument before the High Court on Tuesday as the justices weighed a challenge to a ruling picking one among a group of class actions against AMP, but the court also appeared skeptical of the power to hold wide ranging inquiries into the merits of competing cases.
The eyes of class action lawyers will be on the High Court Tuesday as it hears arguments over a judge’s power to choose a single class action among competing proceedings and what, if anything, should be made of a case’s funding structure and likely returns to group members when picking a winner.
Changes to AMP’s buyer of last resort policy that reduced the multiple by which the wealth management firm would purchase advisers’ client registers was necessary to protect the business from a ‘BOLR run’, a court had been told.
The Australian Securities and Investment Commission will not take action against the Commonwealth Bank of Australia or any of its directors of officers in relation to AUSTRAC proceedings the bank agreed to settle for $700 million in 2018.
Construction giant Boral must now contend with three class actions by shareholders alleging it failed to disclose financial problems with its US windows business, but the cases will stay on ice pending a High Court challenge.
A court has given the green light for opt out and registration notices to be sent to group members in a shareholder class action against AMP, despite objections by the lead plaintiff in a competing class action.