Most Recent
An appeals court has shot down funder Augusta's challenge to a decision that cut its commission in the Opal Tower class action, putting funders on notice that they will have to marshal compelling evidence to win approval for their returns from an increasingly watchful court.
A judge overseeing an investor class action over the collapse of advisory firm Linchpin Capital has questioned whether he has to “effectively second guess” a law firm's advice given to group members about a partial settlement.
Crown Resorts has reached agreement on a proposed penalty in AUSTRAC's case alleging “widespread and serious non-compliance” with anti-money laundering and counter terrorism financing laws, but the presiding judge says more information is needed for the court to fix a fine.
A former director of Australian Mines has copped at $70,000 penalty in ASIC proceedings accusing him of making false and misleading representations at mining investment conferences in 2018.
Insurance Australia has agreed to pay a $40 million penalty in a case by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission alleging it short-changed NRMA customers a staggering $60 million in promised loyalty discounts.
A city council in the Hunter Valley region is set to appeal to the High Court a decision that found it was liable to pay a flight company over $3.6 million in damages for wasted expenditure after it repudiated a contract to lease land at the local airport.
A judge overseeing two 7-Eleven class actions has signed off on $2.25 million in costs incurred by the funder and lawyers in their pitched battle to win approval for the terms of a $98 million settlement, which included deductions of more than $44 million to cover commission and fees.
Commonwealth Bank and other lenders of failed steel giant Arrium have lost a second attempt to put two of the company's directors on the hook for alleged misleading representations on loan drawdown notices ahead of its $2.8 billion collapse.
A judge has questioned whether recent changes to defamation law requiring courts to determine if a publication has caused serious harm ahead of trial are invalid because of possible inconsistency with the Federal Court’s case management rules.