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
Case Developments Commercial

Discovery Application Filed by Russian Billionaire Over Litigation Funding

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

The sanctioning of Russian business owners since 2022 has led to a plethora of litigation, as one ongoing case in Florida sees two Russian nationals in a dispute over the funding of litigation between them.

Reporting by Bloomberg Law covers ongoing proceedings in a Florida court, where sanctioned Russian billionaire Andrey Guriev is seeking discovery on the funding of claims brought against him by Alexander Gorbachev. The discovery application relates to a series of cases brought against Guriev by Gorbachev over his claimed partial ownership of Guriev’s company, with Gorbachev’s legal costs, insurance and additional expenses having been paid by Sphinx Funding LLC, a subsidiary of 777 Partners. 

Gorbachev failed in his claim brought against Guriev in the UK, but has since claimed that he does not have the £12 million that he has been ordered to pay to Guriev in court costs. Mr Guriev’s counsel from Boies Schiller Flexner, explained the reasoning behind the discovery application in a memorandum of law, stating:

“Mr. Guriev hopes to discover information relevant to the identities and ultimate sources of the funds provided by the third-party funders who financed Mr. Gorbachev’s failed, frivolous, and potentially fraudulent claims, as well as the true motives and objectives in bringing those claims.”

In response to a prior application by Guriev to have the two funders added as parties to the case, Joshua Wander, managing partner and co-founder of 777 Partners, stated that even though the company had covered some of Gorbachev’s legal costs, it had no stake in the result of the litigation. Furthermore, Wander had claimed that his companies had no paid any of Gorbachev’s legal costs after May 2023, following a “breakdown in the relationship between Alexander and the funders”.

Case Developments Commercial

£16m Settlement Reached in Dispute Between Funder and Investor’s Estate

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

The funding of arbitration claims brought against nation states represent challenging opportunities for legal funders, with the potential of a large return balanced against the complicated nature and prolonged timelines of these disputes. A new settlement in the High Court demonstrates that these issues can even extend to disputes between the claimant and funder, even when a valuable settlement is secured.

Reporting by the USA Herald covers the move by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales to finalise the settlement in a dispute between litigation funder Buttonwood Legal Capital, and the estate of late Finnish mining investor Mohamed Abdel Raouf Bahgat. The £16.74 million settlement which was approved by the court on Tuesday ended the legal action that Buttonwood began in 2022 to recover a share of the award won in Bahgat’s arbitration case against Egypt.

As Mr Bahgat died on 8 October 2022, the settlement was reached with his estate. The arbitration claim dated back to 2000 when Bahgat was arrested by the new government and had his assets frozen and his mining operations project seized. The arbitration ended in 2019 at a tribunal in The Hague where Bahgat was awarded $43.8 million, which following two years of interest and an enforcement dispute, finished as a $99.5 million payout in November 2021. Buttonwood brought a claim to the High Court in the following year to retrieve its share of the amount, further complicated by a prior renegotiation of terms between Buttonwood and Bahgat in 2017.

Neither Buttonwood Legal nor the Estate of Mr Bahgat have publicly commented on the settlement.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

LSB Director Argues Funding Should Move to a “Mandatory Model” of Regulation

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

With next Monday set as the deadline for the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) Interim Report and Consultation on litigation funding, we are beginning to hear more vocal arguments about the approach the government should take towards regulating the litigation funding industry.

An article in Legal Futures provides an overview of remarks given by Richard Orpin, Director, Regulation & Policy at Legal Services Board, at a consultation event for the CJC review in Oxford. In his speech, Orpin advocated for “moving away from the voluntary model of regulation to a mandatory model” for litigation funding, suggesting that it should be brought “into the remit of the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority).

Orpin argued that the rise in the use of litigation funding had “coincided with an increase in poor practice by some law firms in receipt of that funding,” and that “this pattern of behaviour undermines trust confidence in the ‘no win, no fee’ sector.” Orpin put forward the view that regulators needed to take a “more proactive” stance, highlighting his organisation’s concerns over “poor standards of client care, short-term financial gain being put above the interests of client and duty to the court.”

Other speakers at the event varied in their perspectives, with Richard Blann, head of litigation and conduct investigations at Lloyds Banking Group, similarly arguing that the current model of self-regulation was “ineffective and inadequate” and that the Association of Litigation Funders (ALF) “has no teeth”. 

Adrian Chopin, managing director and founder of Bench Walk Advisers, offered a dissenting view and questioned some of the preconceptions about funding, saying that the suggestion there are “waterfalls where the funders take everything and the client gets nothing” demonstrated a “gross level of ignorance”.