Slater & Gordon shareholders take what little they can get in class action settlement


Watson: best outcome from a terrible situation

Slater & Gordon has settled the first of three shareholder class action it is facing for A$36.5m (£21.6m), which the claimants’ solicitor said represented just a small fraction of their losses but was a better than “the diabolical alternative which meant likely insolvency for Slater & Gordon”.

The ‘in principle’ settlement, which is made without admission of liability and is subject to court approval, will see S&G’s insurers pay A$32.5m and the hedge funds that bought nearly all of the company’s debt contributing a further A$4m.

It preserves shareholders’ ability to continue to pursue third parties for their proportionate share of the overall responsibility for losses to shareholders (known as apportionable claims), but will mean non-apportionable claims cannot be brought against third parties.

The claimants’ solicitor, Andrew Watson, the national head of class actions at Australian law firm Maurice Blackburn, said the settlement was “the best outcome from a terrible situation for shareholders, given the diabolical alternative which meant likely insolvency for Slater & Gordon”.

He said S&G did not have any assets that would be available to fund a settlement or satisfy a judgment against the company as its level of secured debt significantly exceeded the value of its assets, and, as secured creditors, the new owners of S&G’s debt hold a fixed and floating charge over those assets.

As a result, the only source of potential recovery from the company for shareholders was its insurance, the policy limit on which was “unexpectedly low” and represented “on any measure, only a small fraction of the class members’ losses”.

Mr Watson said: “Given the insurance policy limits, and the fact that Slater & Gordon’s defence costs for all actions also come out of the insurance, the proposed settlement will avoid further erosion of the available funds and return to class members as much of what remains under the policies as possible.”

S&G still faces another shareholder class action, while a third has been threatened.

The firm’s shares jumped 10% on news of the settlement, to 8c.




Blog


Why is Andrew Malkinson still paying for a crime he didn’t commit?

Like many in my profession and beyond, I have been moved by the case of Andrew Malkinson, the man who spent 17 years in prison for an awful crime he did not commit.


What is tech bloat and why is it a problem for law firms?

Too many law firms are adopting shiny new tech without first retiring their legacy systems, causing duplication and unnecessary costs.


The civil courts and the digital divide

Despite the government’s decision to increase Ministry of Justice funding, its budget for 2025-26 is still 14% lower in real terms than in 2007-08.


Loading animation