Debunking Five Myths about Australian Securities Class Actions

The Australian shareholder class action landscape is in flux.  There are potential legislative changes around protections afforded investors under the securities laws, regulation of litigation funders, permitting lawyers to charge contingency fees, and restoring common fund orders.  Companies wanting to minimise or eliminate risk of suit are trying to influence public opinion on these issues with articles advocating their positions.  Too often, they rely on hyperbole and ignore what’s actually going on.  Below we debunk their top 5 myths in the hopes of creating a more balanced and informed debate.

Myth 1: An extraordinary growth in shareholder suits creates massive risk for corporate Australia.

The Truth: There are 2,064 companies currently listed on ASX.  From 2014 through 2019, the average number targeted by the securities class action bar was about 10 – a half of one percent of listed companies.  These are not crisis levels.

Myth 2: Australia is a ‘magnet’ for litigation funders seeking massive returns.

The Truth:  Globally, there’s an oversupply of litigation funding capital.  This has modestly increased the number of funding sources in Australia (and elsewhere).  However, there is no indication more issuers are being sued.  Instead, we’re seeing multiple funders suing the same limited number of bad actors.  The increased competition has significantly depressed funder fees which over the past 5 years have dropped from 25%-30% to 10% or less.

Myth 3: Allowing lawyers to charge contingency fees opens the floodgates for strike suits.

The Truth: If (or when) Australian lawyers are permitted to represent clients on a fully contingent basis, the number of funders will likely fall as the source for case investment shifts over.  In the short term, the entry of lawyers will further pressure funder rates.  Longer term, funders will shift gears, establishing their own law firms or financing lawyers directly rather than investor groups.  Either way, competition should keep rates low.

Myth 4: These are strike suits.

The Truth: We’ve not seen critics offer examples of baseless securities suits.  Having reviewed the class actions since 2015, we can find no instance where the underlying corporate misconduct was first brought to public attention by the plaintiff bar.  The suits follow scandals, which belies the idea of counsel ginning things up.  AMP is a good example.  That scandal broke when, on April 16, 2018, Reuters (and others) reported that “Australia’s AMP misled the corporate watchdog for almost a decade: inquiry hears.”

Critics disregard safeguards in the system.  Unlike the US, suits in AU don’t get filed hours or days after revelations of corporate wrongdoing.  Bad cases make bad investments, and funders consider matters for some time before pulling the trigger.  Investigations and book building can take many months with subsequent facts and events added to their analyses including further press revelations and stock price rebounds that can dampen prospects.  Judges can also be relied upon to dismiss legally insufficient claims.

In truth, the Australian process systematically undercompensates actual harm to investors from these scandals.  Unlike the US, where settlements are negotiated against the estimated harm to all class members (as modelled by experts), in Australia the compensation is limited to those investors who register before the parties enter mediation.  Claimants who don’t register are forever barred and go uncompensated.

Both sides enter mediations informed of the damages suffered by eligible (registered) class members.  As a result, on average an Australian securities class action recovers around 25% of losses; in the US, class cases frequently settle in the single digits.  The higher recovery rate further belies the argument that these suits lack merit.

Finally, Australia has adverse party cost shifting, exacting a penalty for frivolous suits.  As noted in the 2018 Australian Litigation Reform Commission (ARLC) Report, the ‘After the Event’ (ATE) insurance market has grown significantly in recent years and such insurance is now readily available.  If frivolous cases were the norm, this insurance market would be shrinking with less coverage and higher premiums.

Myth 5: Securities cases are destroying the D&O insurance market.

The Truth: Critics offer anecdotes but not proof that increasing D&O insurance premiums have been caused by investor suits and not by any of the many other factors impacting coverage availability and rates.  The ALRC Report noted that “there has been chronic underpricing of D&O business by insurers since at least 2011.”  So rates were headed up regardless of recent events.  Persistent underpricing does not justify curtailing shareholder rights and punishing victims of the underlying misconduct being insured.

In sum, critics offer a siren song: curb shareholder rights to protect issuers and D&O carriers from risk.  The truth is that doing so will only erode transparency and trust in the Australian securities markets and cause far more economic harm over the long term.


Michael G. Lange, Esq.

SVP of Worldwide Litigation
Financial Recovery Technologies

Mr. Lange, SVP of Worldwide Litigation at Financial Recovery Technologies, is the senior member of FRT’s Legal & Research team responsible for global opt-in, opt-out, and antitrust case analysis and legal research. During his more than 20 years of practice, he has built a rich network of relationships around the world including corporations, government agencies, lawyers and other professions, which he brings to bear for FRT clients.

Before joining FRT, Mike was a Partner at Berman DeValerio & Pease, one of the country’s leading law firms prosecuting securities, consumer, and antitrust litigation. He personally identified and initiated cases recovering more than $200 million for investors. Mike led the firm’s business development, marketing, and government affairs efforts and was its primary media strategist and spokesperson, handling press calls and interviews. He was principal contact for a number of institutional investor clients, advising them on case merits, damages calculations, lead plaintiff or other involvement, and related strategies. Mike negotiated and oversaw settlements, working closely with administrators on all aspects, from allocation plans and claims notification through processing and distribution.

Education: J.D., cum laude, Harvard Law School (1991), Writing Prize in Law and Economics. B.A., Economics, magna cum laude, Swarthmore College (1988).

Professional Contributions: Former co-chair of BBA Class Action Committee (2001-2002). Executive Committee Member, Vice President (Securities), and Head of Media Committee for National Association of Securities and Consumer Attorneys (NASCAT) (2001-2003; member of senior management and administration committees developing political agenda and strategies for organization, as well as conceiving and implementing lawyer education programs).

Presentations: Lecturer on securities and litigation topics at numerous investor conferences, law school (Boston College) and legal seminars. Co-chair and featured speaker: December 2015 Council of Institutional Investors (CII) panel “Understanding Appraisal Rights”; February 2001 Class Action Litigation Summit (Washington, D.C.); June 2001 MCLE Seminar “Class Action Practices in Massachusetts and Federal Court”; May 2002 BBA Seminar “The Life Cycle of a Class Action.”

Publications Authored articles include “The Evolving Fiduciary Landscape: Antitrust (AmLaw 360, May 10, 2016); “The Probable Effects of Regulation FD on Private Securities Litigation” (Securities News, Winter 2001); and “The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002: Political Sound Bites Posing as Reform” (Securities News, Winter 2003).


About FRT


Founded in 2008, Financial Recovery Technologies (FRT) is the leading technology-based services firm that helps the investment community identify eligibility, file claims and collect funds made available in securities and other class action settlements. Offering the most comprehensive range of claim filing and monitoring services available, we provide best-in-class eligibility analysis, disbursement auditing and client reporting, and deliver the highest level of accuracy, accountability, and transparency available. For more information, go to

FRT services over 800 institutions globally (30+ in Australia), including leading Mutual Funds, Hedge Funds, Pension Funds, Superannuation Funds, Private Banks, Banks, Sovereign Wealth Funds, Insurance companies, and Custodians.

This communication and the content found by following any link herein are being provided to you by Financial Recovery Technologies (FRT) for informational purposes only and does not constitute advice. All material presented herein is believed to be reliable but FRT makes no representation or warranty with respect to this communication or such content and expressly disclaims any implied warranty under law. Opinions expressed in this communication may change without prior notice. Firms should always seek legal and financial advice specific to their unique situation and objectives.