Most Recent
Five IOOF executives will learn their fate this week when a judge rules on a disqualification bid by the prudential regulator, the first judgment to be delivered by a court in a case filed in the wake of last year's scandal-airing banking royal commission.
Law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan will push forward with an investor class action against failed engineering company RCR Tomlinson on its own, with two firms driving competing actions agreeing to step down after a judge forcibly consolidated all three proceedings.
The plaintiffs in three competing RCR Tomlinson shareholder class actions have been told to “get their act together” by the judge who forcibly consolidated their proceedings, after the parties revealed they were as yet unable to agree on joint funding terms.
A judge has promised the parties in the Sydney Opal Tower class action that the matter will be “resolved expeditiously”, despite the plaintiff’s concerns that cross-claims by the defendant and procedural timeframes will cause delays.
The judge overseeing three competing shareholder class actions brought against RCR Tomlinson has refused to entertain a beauty contest, instead deciding to consolidate the proceedings whether the parties “agree or not”.
Lawyers for IOOF chief financial officer David Coulter have dismissed APRA’s allegations that he breached his superannuation duties as commercially “naïve”, “absolutely desperate” and a "most egregious example” of impulsive regulatory enforcement action.
German-based cladding manufacturer 3A Composites has foreshadowed potential cross claims against third party engineers and certifiers in one of two class actions brought over allegedly dangerous combustible cladding used in countless buildings across Australia.
A judge has allowed the applicant in a class action over allegedly dangerous combustible cladding to sue a German-based cladding manufacturer, saying there was a prima facie case the company violated the Australian Consumer Law.
Australian distribution firm Halifax Vogel has struck back at a class action alleging it violated consumer laws with its representations regarding the quality of Alucobond cladding, denying that the cladding puts buildings and their occupants at risk of harm or death from fire.