The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has brought proceedings against insurance company OnePath Life, marking the first time the corporate regulator is seeking financial penalties for an alleged failure to act with utmost good faith during claims handling.
The judge whose ruling against the legal team behind the Banksia class action fraud helped redeem the battered reputation of the civil justice system may be asked to disqualify himself from the final fight in the drawn out case.
Australian pharmaceutical company AUPharma has sued the international arm of Purdue, alleging it was wrongly granted patent extensions for several oxycodone products marketed as Targin.
Dead or broke, the class action lawyers who schemed to defraud investors in failed Banksia Securities should not escape a $21 million judgment for damages and costs, a court has heard.
Novartis and and generic drug maker Pharmacor have resolved litigation over the Swiss pharmaceutical giant’s patents for blockbuster MS drug Gilenya.
Lendlease and other major builders have secured a significant victory in a long-running case brought by the liquidators of failed engineering company Hastie Group, with a judge saying Hastie wasn’t entitled to the proceeds of bank guarantees withdrawn by the builders when it collapsed 10 years ago.
A judge has rejected a bid for his recusal from a contractual dispute in which Maddocks is acting, despite his personal friendship and holiday plans with the law firm’s CEO.
A judge has called off a pre-trial hearing to determine whether the new serious harm element in Australia’s defamation laws is satisfied in a case brought by a weight lifting coach, citing an “unfortunate turn of events”.
Companies associated with the wife of disgraced senior barrister Norman O’Bryan are stuck with the findings of last year’s excoriating judgment against the Banksia class action legal team despite their status as third parties, a court has heard.
The special purpose receiver acting for debenture holders of defunct Banksia Securities was right to reject a confidential settlement — believed to be for $10.6 million — offered by the disgraced lawyers behind a scandal-ridden class action, a court has found.