Paul Liondas

Two executives involved in ANZ’s $2.5 billion equity capital raising have stood by arguments that the book was covered when the bank’s underwriters took up $750 million of the shares, despite ASIC’s allegations of “receding demand” on the day of the placement.

ANZ has told a court it had no obligation to disclose a $750M bailout by the underwriters of a $2.5B equity capital raising in 2015, in ASIC’s case alleging the bank breached its continuous disclosure obligations by failing to alert the market to the bailout.

A senior ANZ executive was “deeply concerned” by the size of the shortfall in its $2.5 billion 2015 equity capital raising, the court heard on the first day of trial in ASIC’s civil penalty case against the bank over alleged disclosure breaches.

A judge has indicated his willingness to approve a $25 million settlement in a class action against dairy co-op Fonterra, but deferred the question of the funder’s cut until after the Full Court rules on whether the court has the power to make a common fund order at settlement.

Group members in a class action against Fonterra are set to reap about $13 million from a $25 million settlement reached with the dairy company, following deductions including the costs of the litigation funder’s after-the-event insurance.

Fonterra has agreed to shell out $25 million to settle a class action by dairy farmers alleging they were underpaid when Fonterra slashed milk prices and sought a “clawback” in 2016.

IOOF financial advice unit RI Advice has escaped a penalty in a test case alleging cybersecurity failures, but the firm must engage an IT security company and pay the corporate regulator’s legal costs.

IOOF unit RI Advice has agreed to settle novel proceedings brought by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission claiming it failed to protect its clients against cybersecurity risks.

IOOF unit RI Advice has lost its bid to strike out ASIC’s novel case claiming it failed to protect its clients against cybersecurity risks, but a judge has chastised the regulator for causing “needless confusion” and “wasted time”.

An IOOF unit accused of failing to protect its clients against cybersecurity risks has slammed ASIC’s claims in the novel case, describing the regulator’s further amended statement of claim as “grossly unfair” and “completely incoherent”.