AMP BOLR class action costs to wait
Members of the AMP buyer of last resort (BOLR) class action will have to wait longer for information on any potential compensation after an update from the Federal Court.
A verdict was handed down by Justice Mark Moshinsky on 5 July that the changes to the BOLR policy made by AMP with immediate effect were not authorised under the legislative, economic or product provisions and were ineffective.
Lead applicant Equity Financial Planners is entitled to damages in the sum of $813,560, while sample group member Wealthstone is entitled to damages in the sum of $115,533.51.
The parties are now in the process of determining the impact of other group members and how many practices have BOLR in their contracts.
Following the verdict, both AMP and the plaintiff Equity Financial Planners had to put in orders and a mention was raised in Federal Court on 25 August.
In a brief statement on 25 August, Justice Moshinsky stated that costs should be reserved, meaning no decision about costs will be made until the conclusion of the case.
AMP announced in its full-year results that it has set aside $50 million in provisions for the case, but many feel this is too low and the actual number should be at least double that figure.
The biggest shareholder class action settlement so far was for $200 million paid by Centro property group in 2012. The case centred around allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct that the firm had misled shareholders by failing to disclose billions of dollars in debt that was about to expire.
Speaking at the time, AMP chief executive Alexis George said the $50 million sum was AMP’s “best estimate of the judgment”.
She has also not ruled out AMP appealing the case.
AUTHOR
Laura Dew
Recommended for you
ASIC has released the results of its first adviser exam to be held in 2025, with 241 candidates attempting the test.
Quarterly Wealth Data analysis has uncovered positive improvements in financial adviser numbers compared with losses in the prior corresponding period.
Holding portfolios that are too complex or personalised can be a detractor for acquirers of financial advice firms as they require too much effort to maintain post-acquisition.
As the financial advice profession continues to wait on further DBFO legislation, industry commentators have encouraged advisers to act now in driving practice efficiency.
Don’t costs reserved mean the legal costs are reserved to a later date? Are you confusing this with Damages?
Great result, but what about those of us that on exit had their books devalued by auditors that completed the exit audit of pre FOFA clients on Post FOFA rules?? not entirely fair there either.