Trending Now
Case Developments Commercial Special Features

Federal Court of Australia Orders Respondent in Shareholder Class Action to Hand Over Insurance Information

The following piece was contributed by Anne Freeman of Australian law firm, Piper Alderman.

Virgin Australia, which has been sued by investors who purchased unsecured notes in the airline based on statements in a 2019 prospectus for a capital raising, has been ordered to advise the lead applicant in the class action whether its has made a claim against its insurer for its costs and any liability in the class action, and whether its insurer has agreed to grant indemnity.  It has also been ordered to produce copies of any insurance policies which might respond to the claims made in the class action[i].

The orders made are in contrast to a 2020 decision of the Court[ii], which found that the case management powers of the Court did not empower it to order the disclosure of the respondent’s insurance policies in class actions.  In that case, very similar orders were sought, namely for production of policies and for communications regarding the insurer’s position on the grant of indemnity.  The applicant in that case relied upon a 2019 Federal Court authority, Simpson v Thorn Australia Pty Ltd trading as Radio Rentals[iii] , which had resulted in orders for the production of insurance information, to argue that the documents were relevant to inform the applicant whether further prosecution of the proceedings was commercially viable and whether mediation was appropriate and, if so, what the appropriate quantum of settlement might be.  The applicant also argued that the documents were relevant to the approval of the settlement and to determine whether action against the insurer may be needed to obtain a declaration of indemnity.  The judge disagreed, taking the conventional position that insurance information is not relevant to the proof of a cause of action in the proceedings and is therefore not discoverable, and noting that the case management powers of the Court were not designed to “confer an asymmetric commercial advantage in favour of one party at the expense of another” in mediations.  Beach J also rejected the suggestion that the documents were needed for any settlement approval, and distinguished the position in Simpson where leave had been granted to bring a claim against the insurer.

The orders are also in contrast to a decision of another Federal Court judge, who declined an application by a shareholder to access insurance policies under a discretionary power which may allow shareholders access to the books and records of the company, if the application is made in good faith and for a proper purpose[iv].  That decision was based upon a finding by the judge that the claims made by the class members did not arise from their rights and entitlements as shareholders but rather as potential investors, and that therefore the application was not brought for a proper purpose.

The orders in Virgin Australia were made in the context of a Deed of Company Arrangement and the need to consider which claims against the company were covered by insurance.  That made the insurance position relevant, and distinguishes it from the decision in Evans.  However, the decision does show that accessing insurance information is a matter to be considered carefully in the circumstances of the individual case.  There are mechanisms available to obtain insurance information, which is obviously valuable in considering the recoverability of any funded claim.  Early consideration should be given in each class action as to potential means to obtain this information.

[i] Matheson Property Group Australia Pty Ltd as Trustee for The MPG Trust v Virgin Australia Holdings Limited NSD346/2022, order of Lee J, 28 June 2022

[ii] Evans v Davantage [2020] FCA 473

[iii] [2019] FCA 1229

[iv] Ingram as trustee for the Ingram Superannuation Fund v Ardent Leisure Limited [2020] FCA 1302

 

Case Developments

View All
Case Developments Commercial

$170 Million Settlement Approved in Allianz Class Action

By Harry Moran |

A complex Australian class action that emerged through the consolidation of two separate group proceedings has reached a successful conclusion, with the court approving a large settlement and thereby marking a significant win for the litigation funder who backed the case. 

A post on LinkedIn from Balance Legal Capital highlighted the approval of the settlement in the Allianz class action, with the Supreme Court of Victoria approving the A$170 million sum to bring the group proceedings to a close. The class action, which Balance Legal Capital funded, was brought on behalf of over 200,000 Australian customers who purchased a vehicle and were then sold Allianz or Allianz Life “add-on” insurance products by the dealership, alleging that the insurers engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct.

Johnson Winter Slattery (JWS) and Maurice Blackburn Lawyers jointly represented the plaintiffs in the class action. In 2021, the Court had ordered the consolidation of this group proceeding with a similar class action against Allianz, resulting in two representative plaintiffs: Ms Tracy-Ann Fuller and Mr Wilkinson.

The judgment approving the proposed settlement was made today, with the court approving a $30,000 payment to the two plaintiffs. The court also maintained the Group Costs Order (GCO) of 25% of the settlement, with a $42.5 million payment set to be divided between JWS and Maurice Blackburn, with a further sum of up to $4.72 million allocated to Maurice Blackburn for the administering of the settlement distribution scheme. 

On the costs incurred by the law firms, Justice Matthews wrote that they were, “satisfied that the costs are reasonable and proportionate to the issues in dispute and the overall amount in dispute.” The judge went on to highlight that the class action “was a very large and complex proceeding and it is unsurprising that the costs are substantial.”

The full judgment and settlement approval orders can be read here. More information about the case can be found on the Allianz Class Action website.

Case Developments Commercial

Judge Halves Funder’s Legal Costs in Mastercard Case

By Harry Moran |

The dispute between Walter Merricks and Innsworth Capital in the Mastercard claim has been one of the most visible examples of a rift between a class representative and litigation funder. 

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides an update on the ongoing fallout from the settlement in the Mastercard litigation, as the acting president of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has described the funder’s legal costs of over £52,000 as “wholly disproportionate and unreasonable”. These comments came in a ruling on costs that Mr Justice Roth had ordered the class representative to pay, relating to the funder’s legal costs for responding to Mr Merricks’ application for a court order (‘Documents Application) that would have prevented the funder from using confidential documents in its intervention.

In his assessment of Innsworth’s submissions on costs, the judge accepted that the funder’s need to oppose the Documents Application was “critical to its ability to participate effectively in opposing the CSAO Application” and went on to say that he had “no criticism of the time spent by the solicitors.” However, Justice Roth did highlight the decision to instruct “both leading and junior counsel to advise on the response” and the fact that in this matter, “Akin Gump is charging at well over double, and in the case of the Grade B solicitor almost three times, the London 1 Guideline Rates.”

The ruling goes on to note that whilst Innsworth “may choose to agree with its solicitors to pay a much higher rate of fees”, it does not automatically follow “that costs incurred at those rates are recoverable from the other side”. Determining the final costs, Justice Roth settled on a reduction of the solicitors’ fees down from £26,355.50 to £12,000, and similarly reduced the counsel fees to £10,000, which he still described as “generous”. As a result, the final sum for Innsworth’s costs was set at £22,000.

The full ruling from Mr Justice Roth can be read here.

Case Developments Commercial

$3.5M Settlement Approved in Class Action Against Melissa Caddick’s Auditors 

By Harry Moran |

A class action brought in the Federal Court of Australia has reached a resolution less than two years after it began, as a settlement has been approved between investors and the former auditors of a deceased fraudster.

Reporting by The Canberra Times covers a $3.5 million settlement in the class action brought against the auditors that were engaged by Melissa Caddick, an Australian financial adviser who defrauded investors prior to her disappearance and death in November, 2020. The settlement is the latest money recouped by Caddick’s investors, having already received $7.25 million following the sale of her assets by liquidators between 2023 and 2024. The class action targeted Caddick’s auditors on allegations that they had failed in their duties to audit their client’s self-managed superannuation funds, and had breached the Corporations Act.

The class action had been launched in September 2023 with Mackay Chapman representing 32 of Caddick’s former investors, with litigation funder Therium providing the financing for the lawsuit. Following the approval of the $3.5 million settlement by Federal court Justice Brigitte Markovic, Mackay Chapman will receive around $1 million in legal costs whilst Therium will be allocated a funding commission of $492,000. After disbursement costs, the claimants will receive the remaining $1.73 million from the settlement.

Michael Chapman, director at Mackay Chapman, described the settlement as “a great outcome for the group members”, and that his firm’s legal costs were recouped at discount to ensure that 50 per cent of the overall settlement was returned to the investors. 

The settlement agreement did not contain any admission of liability by the auditors. The full settlement approval order with additional details on the disbursement of funds can be read here.