Qantas will pay a $100 million penalty and another $20 million in compensation in a settlement of the ACCC’s so-called ghost flights case that includes an admission by the airline that it engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in selling tickets for cancelled flights.
A judge has questioned the “independent skill and judgment” applied to the pleading in a third class action filed against International Capital Markets over risky derivative products, amid a “hot contest as to carriage and forum”.
The law firm and funder that ran a class action against Retail Food Group on behalf of current and former franchisees of its Michel’s Patisserie chain will be out of pocket, after the company agreed to a settlement under which it will pay nothing.
ASIC has brought proceedings against renewables company Magnis Energy Technologies and its executive chairman for allegedly misleading the market about the capabilities and funding for the company’s “flagship” battery production facility in New York.
Fashion retailer Mosaic Brands has flagged various COVID-related defences to a case brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission alleging it failed to deliver several hundred thousand products to customers within advertised time frames.
Aussie Skips is not appealing a finding that it engaged in serious criminal cartel conduct but will challenge the size of the $3.5 million penalty, a court has been told.
Sydney lawyer and wealth guru Dominique Grubisa is challenging a finding in an ACCC case that her seminars made misleading statements and has sought to pause the court action until her appeal is heard, a bid a judge has warned won’t be “favourably received” by him.
The Environmental Defenders Office has lodged a complaint with ASIC on behalf of a member of UniSuper, accusing the Australian superannuation fund of greenwashing its products by mislabelling them as ‘sustainable’.
Australians who sank $21.2 million into crypto firm NGS Crypto, including their retirement savings, may have been misled about the safety of their investments, according to an investigation by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
The corporate regulator is appealing a judgment that tossed its landmark action against Austo & General Insurance, saying the judge erred in construing an unclear and disproportionate term in the insurer’s house and contents policy.