On 9 May 2018, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (QE) filed a class action against AMP Limited (ASX:AMP) (AMP) for losses suffered by AMP shareholders resulting from its recent admissions of misconduct at the Financial Services Royal Commission (AMP Class Action).
Update to Group Members – 27 June 2019
On 18 June 2019, the Plaintiff in the Wigmans Proceeding appealed orders made by the NSW Supreme Court staying the Wigmans v AMP proceeding. That appeal is yet to be determined. The matter is next before the court on 22 July 2019. Please visit this website for regular updates.
Update to Group Members – 12 June 2019
The Wigmans Proceeding is currently stayed, pursuant to orders of the Supreme Court. We note the Plaintiff is considering whether to appeal the judgment.. A further update will be provided to shareholders shortly.
Update to Group Members – 5 May 2019
Dear Group Members,
Thank you for registering to participate in the AMP Limited Shareholder Class Action.
As you may be aware, shortly after Ms Marion Wigmans commenced the shareholder class action against AMP (represented by Quinn Emanuel and funded by Burford Capital) in the Supreme Court of New South Wales (the Wigmans Proceeding), four other proceedings were commenced in the Federal Court of Australia, making substantially similar allegations. Each of these proceedings was represented by different law firms and litigation funders. In August 2018, each of the Federal Court proceedings were transferred to the Supreme Court of New South Wales alongside the Wigmans Proceeding.
In early December 2018, a hearing was conducted by the Supreme Court to determine which of the proceedings should continue to prosecute the shareholder action against AMP. At this stage, we are still waiting for the judgment of the Supreme Court. We expect this decision will be delivered soon and we will provide you with a further update once this issue has been resolved.
What is the AMP Class Action about?
- AMP is an ASX-listed financial services company which, amongst other things, provides personal financial advice (the Advice Business)
- Between the period 2006 and 2016, AMP had an ongoing practice in respect of its Advice Business of charging certain fees for personal financial advice which was not provided to clients.
- At the Financial Services Royal Commission, AMP admitted that the charging of fees for no service was in breach of its statutory obligations, and was unethical.
- Between 27 May 2015 and 3 May 2017, AMP provided 20 false or misleading statements to ASIC about its Advice Business, which misleadingly gave the impression that the ‘fees for no service’ was an administrative error, rather than a business policy.
- On 20 April 2018, AMP apologised to the shareholders “…for the misconduct and failures in regulatory disclosures in the advice business”.
What are the allegations against AMP?
- AMP breached its obligations under the Corporations Act and ASX Listing Rules of continuous disclosure by failing to make disclosures to the market in respect of the misconduct set out above;
- made, and continued to make, misleading and deceptive representations to the market regarding its compliance with the law; and
- engaged in unconscionable conduct.
The Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of herself and other shareholders for the financial loss suffered as a result of AMP’s alleged breaches. Further details about the AMP Class Action can be obtained by contacting QE on 1800 824 174 or by email, email@example.com
How much will it cost to be part of the class action?
The class action is being run on a no win – no pay basis, with all costs fully underwritten by litigation funder, Burford Capital (Burford). Group Members will not be liable for any upfront, out-of-pocket expenses, unless the class action is successfully resolved. In the event the claim is unsuccessful, Burford will pay the other side’s legal costs. The Plaintiff also intends to seek a common fund order in the class action. A common fund order is a Court order that all Group Members in a class action pay a portion of any compensation they may be entitled receive if the class action results in a successful settlement or judgment as consideration for the funder, in this case Burford, providing funding to run the class action.