Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

High Court confirms use of public examination powers to investigate potential class actions

The High Court has ruled in favour of shareholders in Walton & Anor v ACN 004 410 833 Ltd (formerly Arrium Limited) (in liq) & Ors. In a 3:2 decision, the majority permitted former shareholders of Arrium Ltd to examine the insolvent company’s officers under s 596A of the Corporations Act 2001 (‘CA’) for the purpose of potentially bringing a class action against the company’s managers.

The Road Ahead

The High Court (3:2) decision is positive news for shareholder class actions as it confirms that “eligible applicants” can publicly examine corporate officers about a corporation’s affairs, to test the merits of a potential class action against the company. This is even if a liquidator does not intend to investigate or pursue claims against the officers of the company.

The approach adopted by the majority is a welcome step forward for corporate accountability in the midst of many attempts by the legislature to constrict the Australian class action landscape.

Procedural history

The applicants were shareholders in a former mining company, Arrium Ltd (‘Arrium’). The applicants bought shares in Arrium during a capital raising in 2014. Shortly thereafter, Arrium announced an impairment to the value of its business of over $1billion. Arrium was then placed into administration, and then finally liquidation.

Under s 596A CA, the Court is to summon a person for examination about a corporation’s ‘examinable affairs’ if an eligible applicant seeks the order, and the court is satisfied that the person subject to the order was an officer or liquidator of the corporation during the prescribed period.

With authorisation from ASIC, the applicants sought an order from the Supreme Court of New South Wales summoning a former director of Arrium for public examination. The applicants sought the order,  as they believed that they may have claims against the former directors and auditors of Arrium arising out of the capital raising and the company’s published financial results for the same period. The goal of the examination was to investigate whether pursuing these claims as a class action with other shareholders was viable.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales initially granted the order.  However, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision to allow the examination on the basis that it was an abuse of process, as the examination did not benefit Arrium, its creditors, or its contributories.

The issue to be determined by the High Court was whether the applicant’s purpose for seeking the order was an abuse of process. This involved considering whether the purpose of the application was consistent with the purpose of s 596A CA.

Was the Proposed Examination an abuse of process?

The majority (Justices Edelman, Steward and Gageler) allowed the appeal, finding that the application was not an abuse of process. The purpose for the application was held to be within the scope of s 596A CA.

In coming to this conclusion, the court considered section 596A CA to ascertain its purpose, which involved lengthy consideration of the preceding iterations of the statutory scheme for public examinations.

The High Court acknowledged that earlier laws insisted on public examinations being for the benefit of the company or its creditors, or for bringing criminal or regulatory proceedings in connection with the company. However, the High Court concluded that these requirements did not apply to bringing an application under s 596A CA because s 596A CA has no direct analogy with any former provision in the earlier companies’ legislation. Instead, the court held that s 596A has much broader requirements than the former laws on this issue.

This is because:

1.     section 596A CA is drafted differently, and applications under it require less supporting evidence than earlier companies’ legislation and other sections within the same part of the Corporations Act 2001;

2.      section 596A CA was intentionally drafted to have a broad application;

3.     section 596A was enacted in the public interest to facilitate the administration or enforcement of the law concerning a corporation and its officers in public dealings. Therefore, an application under this section will not be an abuse of process if it promotes compliance with the law.

On this basis, the High Court concluded that using a compulsory examination to test the merits of a potential class action for corporate misconduct coincides with the purpose of s 596A CA. The fact that the proposed class action would not benefit all of Arrium’s shareholders did not jeopardise the validity of the application, because s 596A CA is directed to enforcing the law, rather than benefitting the company in administration.

The judgment is available here: Walton v ACN 004 410 833 (formerly Arrium Ltd) (in liq) [2022] HCA 3, 16 February 2022.

About the Authors

Lillian Rizio specialises in managing large scale complex litigation, particularly with claims involving multiple parties. Lillian’s emphasis is on corporate disputes, class actions, professional negligence and insurance, across most Australian jurisdictions.

Lillian also has extensive experience advising clients in relation to right to information matters, in both federal and state jurisdictions

Julia Hegarty is a law clerk in the Dispute Resolution and Litigation team at Piper Alderman in Brisbane. She is currently studying a Bachelor of Commerce/Laws (Hons) at the University of Queensland. Julia has an interest in externally funded litigation and shareholder class actions.

For queries or comments in relation to this article please contact Kat Gieras, Litigation Group Project Coordinator | T: +61 7 3220 7765 | E:  kgieras@piperalderman.com.au

Commercial

View All
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Scott Davis, Partner, Klarquist

By John Freund |

Scott focuses on intellectual property litigation, representing clients in courts throughout the U.S. He has had great success both obtaining relief for intellectual property owners and defending suits in a wide range of technical fields in cases involving patent, trade secret, unfair competition, employment agreement, copyright, DMCA, trademark, trade dress, product configuration, and false advertising claims.

Scott has litigated cases involving chemical, mechanical, medical device, internet, software, encryption, computer, clean energy, automotive, apparel, food, agricultural, and pharmaceutical technologies. Representing some of the largest companies in the world as well as smaller businesses and start-ups, he has succeeded for clients such as Adobe, British Airways, Columbia River Knife & Tool, Capsugel, Costco, Danner, DexCom, Intuit, Microsoft, Nightforce, Phibro Animal Health Corporation, SAP, SunModo, and Yelp.

Describing his past success and approach with the Klarquist litigation team, IAM Patent 1000 recently lauded Scott’s ability to assess the best strategies and his talent for understanding and simplifying complex technology, and noted that Scott will “always put your objectives first and act like a part of your team.”

Company Name and Description: Klarquist is a full-service intellectual property (IP) law firm with services including IP counseling, patents, trademarks, copyrights, litigation, and post-grant USPTO proceedings. Because we focus our practice exclusively on intellectual property, our prosecution professionals leverage a thorough understanding of our clients’ cutting-edge technology to an extent not seen in general practice firms. Our technical expertise covers biotechnology, physics and optics, chemistry, electrical and mechanical engineering, software and computer science, plants, and semiconductors.

Klarquist is one of the oldest and largest intellectual property law firms in the Pacific Northwest. For more than 80 years, the firm has provided intellectual property legal services to innovators of all stripes and sizes. The firm has over 60 attorneys and patent agents, more than 90% of whom hold technical degrees and many with doctorates in their respective fields. Klarquist professionals are adept at handling all phases of intellectual property matters, from procurement to transfer to litigation of disputes and post-grant review proceedings. Our roster of clients includes some of the most innovative companies and institutions in the world, from Amazon and Microsoft to the U.S. Government, which chooses Klarquist to procure its patents more than any other firm in the nation. As a full-service intellectual property boutique, Klarquist is uniquely equipped to handle any matter, for any innovator, in virtually every area of modern technology.

Website: www.klarquist.com

Year Founded: 1941

Headquarters: Portland, Oregon

Areas of Interest: Dispute resolution, litigation, and patent post grant proceedings.

Member Quote: "Litigation funding provides a key to unlock access to civil justice."

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.