P Dawson Nominees Pty Ltd v Brookfield Multiplex Limited (No 4) [2010] FCA 1029

P Dawson Nominees Pty Ltd v Brookfield Multiplex Limited (No 4) [2010] FCA 1029

The settlement was approved because it was the product of arm's length negotiations, was reached after sufficient pleadings, particulars and discovery to assess the claims, was recommended by specialist class action lawyers and counsel whose fees were independently shown to be fair and reasonable, yielded a significant recovery of about 62 cents in the dollar, attracted no opposition from class members, and avoided substantial litigation risk, cost, delay and likely appeals on uncertain issues including market-based causation. The unusual distribution, funding equalisation, reimbursement payments and solicitor restraint did not make the settlement unfair or unreasonable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceeding / Class Action / Application for Approval of Settlement Under S 33 V of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)
Outcome
Settlement approved.
Legal Topics
['approval of Class Action Settlement' 'continuous Disclosure' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'market Based Causation' 'settlement Distribution Scheme' 'funding Equalisation Factor' "reimbursement of Applicants' Time and Expenses" 'solicitors Restrained From Acting in Future Litigation']
['representative Proceedings' 'corporations Law' 'securities Litigation'] ['approval of Class Action Settlement' 'continuous Disclosure' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'market Based Causation' 'settlement Distribution Scheme' 'funding Equalisation Factor' "reimbursement of Applicants' Time and Expenses" 'solicitors Restrained From Acting in Future Litigation']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Representative Proceeding / Class Action / Application for Approval of Settlement Under S 33 V of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed class action settlement should be approved under s 33V of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).' 'Whether the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable to class members.' 'Whether a distribution formula using two methods of loss assessment and a funding equalisation factor should be accepted.' 'Whether reimbursement payments to the applicants for time and expenses should be approved.' 'Whether a restraint on Maurice Blackburn acting in further claims against Multiplex arising out of the same facts prevented approval of the settlement.']

Ratio Decidendi

The settlement was approved because it was the product of arm's length negotiations, was reached after sufficient pleadings, particulars and discovery to assess the claims, was recommended by specialist class action lawyers and counsel whose fees were independently shown to be fair and reasonable, yielded a significant recovery of about 62 cents in the dollar, attracted no opposition from class members, and avoided substantial litigation risk, cost, delay and likely appeals on uncertain issues including market-based causation. The unusual distribution, funding equalisation, reimbursement payments and solicitor restraint did not make the settlement unfair or unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Settlement approved.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to sections 33V and 33ZF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the settlement of the proceeding be approved on the terms set out in the Class Action Settlement Deed dated 14 May 2010, the Class Action Settlement Amending Deed dated 20 July 2010, and the Settlement Distribution Scheme.'...