The Australian Government is considering the merits of legislating a minimum return to group members in funded class actions, potentially as high as 70 per cent of gross proceeds. The introduction of a 70 per cent minimum would be a completely arbitrary measure and is not supported by reference to any analysis of the negative implications for the funding of class actions or the risks being assumed by litigation funders ..read more

The Aotearoa New Zealand Law Commission handed down its supplementary issues paper in its ongoing review of class actions and litigation funding in New Zealand and has confirmed its view that a statutory class action regime is desirable, observing that even those submitters who were sceptical of the benefits of class actions preferred the certainty of such reform ..read more

The Omni Bridgeway-funded class action against the manufacturer and suppliers of certain polyethylene (PE) core cladding has commenced in the High Court of New Zealand. The action seeks compensation for New Zealand property owners and lease holders who have suffered or will suffer financial loss in relation to the Alucobond PE and Alucobond Plus cladding products which are or were affixed to their buildings ..read more

Litigation funding is becoming a more regular feature of the legal landscape in New Zealand, particularly in the funding of large multi-party actions. However, there are no specific legislative or regulatory provisions that apply to litigation funding and no statutory class actions regime ..read more

A number of sensible reforms to Australia’s 30-year-old class action system are underway, with the ‘light touch’ regulatory regime that has drawn legitimate criticism starting to get a little heavier ..read more

So much for the so-called ‘explosion’ in shareholder class actions backed by unscrupulous litigation funders. This claim, used liberally by sections of corporate Australia and their US big business allies to justify self-serving attacks on the litigation funding industry, was always based on dubious accounting. But now we have incontestable evidence that the ‘explosion’ is nothing more than a myth ..read more

The Supreme Court of New Zealand has dismissed an application for leave to appeal an “unless” order striking out the proceedings unless the claimants’ provided security for costs by a certain date. The case was a multi-party action brought on behalf of some 3,600 investors in the failed carpet-maker, Feltex Carpets Ltd (Feltex). Despite the case being funded, the security was never provided and the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant leave has effectively brought the case to an end ..read more

Brick by brick, the claim that funded class actions are the primary driver of rising directors’ liability insurance premiums is being dismantled. Even more precarious is the claim that the Commonwealth Government’s continuous disclosure reforms are the answer and will result in enormous savings for Australian business ..read more

Plaintiff law firms have been eagerly awaiting a decision to be handed in respect of Victoria’s group costs order legislation, which permits a plaintiff’s solicitor to be remunerated by reference to a percentage of any award or settlement obtained. The Supreme Court of Victoria has now published its first decision in respect of the group costs regime, however, has the wait been worthwhile ..read more

The High Court of Australia (HCA), in a majority decision, has held that the pursuit of a claim for the benefit of some shareholders may be as valid as a claim made for all shareholders. In each situation, the claim in respect of corporate misfeasance is in the public interest because it seeks to enforce the law and protect shareholders and creditors alike ..read more