Trending Now

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

Favourable Ruling for Woodsford in Standard Chartered Claim

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

When shareholders suffer losses as a result of corporate governance failures by large financial institutions, investors often require the support of litigation funders in their efforts to seek justice and secure compensation from these multinational giants. 

An announcement from Woodsford revealed that a group of institutional investors bringing a group claim against Standard Chartered, with litigation funding provided by Woodsford, have received a favourable judgment in the High Court. The judgment handed down by Mr Justice Michael Green dismissed Standard Chartered’s application to strike out a portion of the group claim, which means that the claim can now proceed towards its scheduled trial in October 2026.  

The claim focuses on allegations that the bank failed in its corporate governance around its dealings with Iran and Iranian-linked institutions that were subject to US sanctions, resulting in financial losses suffered by shareholders. 

Standard Chartered applied to strike out “Common Reliance” claims of 949 of the funds that are participating in the group claims, with these funds representing 68% of the claimants funds that account for over £760 million of the claim value. Green J’s judgment examined the prior ruling on a strike out application in a similar claim, Allianz Funds Multi-Strategy Trust and ors v Barclays plc [2024], but found that he had “doubts about the correctness” of that decision. 

In his conclusion on the common reliance claims, Green J wrote: “There are factual matters that, in my view, require determination and the expert evidence might assist in understanding the extent to which the Published Information would have affected the market price and its influence therefore on the decisions made by the Claimants.”

Signature Litigation acted for the claimants, instructing Graham Chapman KC, Shail Patel KC and William Harman of 4 New Square.

The full judgment from Green J in Various Claimants v Standard Chartered can be read here.

No Talks or Negotiations Between Argentina and Burford over $16B Award

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

The legal fight between Burford Capital and Argentina over the $16.1 billion award in the case brought by investors of the YPF oil and gas company has continued to demonstrate challenges when it comes to judgment enforcement and collection. Although there have been few development since Argentina filed its appeal against the US court’s ruling, a new insight with a key figure at the litigation funder has revealed that the Argentine government is not showing any signs of compromise. 

An article in the Buenos Aires Times provides new insights into the ongoing struggle for Burford Capital to collect on the $16.1 billion award in the YPF case, as Gerardo Mato, who was hired by the funder to act as a mediator with Argentina, has said that there have been no meetings with representatives from the Argentine government. The article provides a behind-the-scenes view of the fight to recover the award, citing quotes from an interview with Mato conducted at Bloomberg’s offices in Buenos Aires.

In the interview, Mato explained that whilst they had “contacted the authorities at the Economy Ministry and legal authorities”, there had been no form of reciprocal communication from Argentina. Mato stated that “there have been no talks for now with the government”, and as of this moment, “no type of negotiation has been established yet.” 

As for the funder’s strategy moving forward with efforts to open a productive dialogue with the Argentine government, Mato argued that “Burford isn’t in any rush on this issue” and that “the best tool that we have is patience.” Whilst all parties await the Appeals Court’s final ruling on Argentina’s appeal against the award, Mato argued that negotiating prior that decision would “benefit the government”. Instead, Mato suggested that if the court provides a favourable ruling to Burford, then Argentina will “have to pay the totality of the suit.” 

Augusta Ventures Funding German Pesticide Cartel Class Action

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

Whilst funded class actions are most commonly seen in prominent legal funding markets such as the UK, US and Australia, we are increasingly seen large scale group claims being brought in European jurisdictions with the support of litigation funders.

An article in Handelsblatt covers one of the largest class action lawsuits brought in Europe, as Unilegion has filed a lawsuit in the Dortmund Regional Court seeking €200 million in damages over allegations of price fixing in the sale of pesticide by a cartel of agricultural wholesalers in Germany. The claim being brought against the ‘pesticide cartel’ is representing  over 3,2000 farmers, and follows a 2020 investigation by the Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office) which imposed €157 million in fines on eight wholesalers. 

The agricultural companies found to have been involved in this price-fixing between 1998 and March 2015 are: AGRAVIS Raiffeisen AG , Hanover/Münster AGRO Agrargroßhandel GmbH & Co. KG, BayWa AG, BSL Betriebsmittel Service Logistik GmbH & Co. KG, Getreide AG, Raiffeisen Waren GmbH, Raiffeisen Waren-Zentrale Rhein-Main eG, and ZG Raiffeisen eG.

The lawsuit is being supported by legal representation from the Hamburg office of Taylor Wessing, whilst third-party funding has been secured from Augusta Ventures. A similar class action lawsuit representing German farmers is being brought by Bäuerliche Geschädigtengemeinschaft (BGG), with funding in that case being provided by Transatlantis.

More information about the Pesticide Cartel case can be found on the Unilegion website.