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

UK Court Upholds Funders’ LFAs Against Apple, Visa

By John Freund |

A unanimous Court of Appeal has delivered Britain’s litigation-funding industry its most decisive post-PACCAR victory to date, green-lighting the revised financing agreements that underpin multibillion-pound collective actions against Apple, Sony, Visa and Mastercard.

Legal Futures reports that the court rejected arguments claiming a damages cap turns a multiple-based LFA into an illegal damages-based agreement. Writing for the court, Chancellor Sir Julian Flaux held that such caps merely shield class members from excessive returns and do not offend section 58AA of the Courts and Legal Services Act. The judgment restores commercial certainty after the Supreme Court’s 2023 PACCAR decision invalidated percentage-based LFAs and froze dozens of collective actions. Four Competition Appeal Tribunal claims—covering interchange-fee suits and consumer-electronics overcharge allegations—had been stayed pending clarity; they are now expected to restart swiftly.

Practically, the ruling affirms the post-PACCAR template most funders adopted: a defined-multiple return with a protective ceiling expressed as a share of recoveries. Claimant firms may revisit stalled cases once deemed unfundable, while policymakers can pause calls for emergency legislation.

Case Developments Commercial

Bench Walk to Recoup First Cut of Lupaka’s $65M Peru Award

By John Freund |

Canadian miner Lupaka Gold has landed the sort of out-of-the-blue windfall that keeps arbitration funders in business. An ICSID tribunal has ordered the Republic of Peru to pay the TSX-V-listed junior roughly $65 million—the full compensation Lupaka sought over the 2018 shuttering of its Invicta gold project, plus costs and compound interest dating back nearly six years.

A press release in GlobeNewswire states that Lupaka will not be the first to collect the proceeds. Under its non-recourse financing agreement, the initial distributions flow to Bench Walk Advisors, the New York- and London-based funder that bankrolled the treaty claim and fronted more than US $4 million in arbitration costs. Only after Bench Walk is made whole—and receives its agreed return—will the miner’s shareholders see any cash.

The award exemplifies how litigation finance is reshaping investor-state disputes. Bench Walk assumed the risk that Peru might prevail or drag the process out indefinitely; in exchange it now stands to crystalise a sizeable, near-term return once enforcement begins. Lupaka’s management, for its part, concedes that “a few more hoops” remain before Peru’s treasury wires the money, but the tribunal’s merits ruling removes the biggest hurdle.

The case reinforces third-party funding’s strategic utility for smaller resource companies facing sovereign interference—especially in Latin America’s mining belt, where political risk remains acute. Funders will parse the award’s interest mechanics as a template for quantifying damages over protracted timelines. More broadly, the result helps validate Bench Walk’s aggressive expansion into treaty arbitration and may spur peers to chase similar high-beta opportunities, even as governments and the UN-backed ICSID reform process debate tighter disclosure around funding arrangements.

Case Developments Commercial

Argentina Seeks UK Stay on $16 B YPF Judgment Backed by Burford

By John Freund |

Even as a U.S. court ordered the hand-over of YPF shares, Argentina raced to London’s High Court to stall UK recognition of the same multi-billion award.

An article in Reuters recounts how government counsel told the court that enforcing the U.S. judgment before appellate review would cause no prejudice because “there are no assets here” to seize. The Burford-funded plaintiffs countered that Argentina’s bid is a delay tactic and asked for a £2.0 billion security if any pause is granted, noting interest is compounding at US $2.5 million per day.

The duelling venues highlight Burford’s trans-Atlantic enforcement campaign and the growing strategic sophistication of funders in sovereign disputes. London has become the favoured battleground for enforcing U.S. commercial awards against states, thanks to Section 101 of the 2006 Arbitration Act and the city’s deep asset pool.

For funders, the hearing underscores the need to pursue parallel forums to pressure recalcitrant states—especially when holdings (like YPF shares) sit outside the U.S. A reserved security order could significantly raise Argentina’s cost of delay and signal to other sovereign debtors that London courts will not rubber-stamp tactical pauses. The outcome will be closely watched by hedge funds and litigation financiers eyeing distressed-sovereign opportunities.