A judge’s decision refusing to approve a $42 million settlement in a shareholder class action against Murray Goulburn because of a “too high” funder’s commission has set the stage for a showdown over the power of courts to alter funding agreements, a battle potentially more consequential than the fight over common fund orders now before the High Court.
A judge’s decision to pick Maurice Blackburn’s no win, no fee class action against AMP over three funded class actions puts the pressure on litigation funders, which will now face more competition from law firms prepared to go it alone, experts say. The ruling also shows the value courts place on funding arrangements that seek to maximise returns for class members, which means class action beauty parades are sure to get less ugly.
A ruling by a judge deciding a four-way contest to run a shareholder class action against AMP is expected this week, a judgment significant not just because it is the first time a court in Australia has been asked to choose among so many competing representative cases.
The writing may be on the wall for common fund orders in class actions that put all unregistered group members on the hook for a litigation funder’s commission, after the High Court agreed Wednesday to take up landmark challenges by Westpac and BMW, experts say.
Two rulings Friday keeping alive the common fund order are a ringing endorsement by the courts of the important role that litigation funders play in class actions, experts say, and have paved the way for more funded post-Hayne consumer litigation against banks and other financial services firms this year.
Judgments in two appeals challenging the legality of common fund orders issued by courts in class actions will be handed down this week, and the rulings could have a profound effect on how class actions are run by lawyers and their funders in the future.
Class action experts have come to the defence of boutique law firm Phi Finney McDonald as heavyweight Maurice Blackburn appeals a judge’s ruling to choose the “less experienced” firm to lead a shareholder class action against BHP Billiton.
An unprecedented joint-sitting of two appeals courts will this week hear a constitutional challenge to the power of judges to make so-called common fund orders, a challenge that could have significant ramifications for class actions even if they don’t fall foul of the ‘vibe of the thing’.
Lawyerly spoke to ten class action experts on the release of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s highly anticipated report into the class action regime. While many of the ALRC’s proposals were expected — and welcomed as sensible — others were greeted with concern and skepticism. Here, we look at the most controversial of the 24 recommendations.
Australia’s four biggest lenders had an expensive year in court last year, but with cases spilling over into the new year and the fallout from the Royal Commission expected to see a litigation blitz by regulators and class action lawyers, much more is in store for the banks in 2019. Here, Lawyerly takes a look at the court cases facing ANZ Banking Group, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, National Australia Bank and Westpac Banking Corp so far this year.