Global litigation firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan is investigating a class action lawsuit against AMP after the company’s shares dropped dramatically following revelations at the royal commission last week.
The firm’s Sydney-based partner, Damian Scattini, is heading the investigation. Mr Scattini was a lead litigator in one of the suits that followed the collapse of infamous boutique advice firm Storm Financial.
Giving evidence before the royal commission, AMP head of financial advice Jack Regan admitted his firm lied to ASIC on 20 separate occasions about its practice of providing ‘fees for no service’ to financial advice clients.
Quinn Emanuel has backing from global litigation funding firm Burford Capital for the potential class action.
The class action is open to shareholders who acquired shares between 24 May 2013 and 16 April 2018.
Mr Damian Scattini said: “The revelations of AMP’s misconduct are especially upsetting given the people who were hurt – the ordinary Mums and Dads who as shareholders gave AMP one of Australia’s largest shareholder registers, who have now lost their savings due to its dishonesty, and who as customers were charged for services AMP has admitted they never received, all so executives could make hefty bonuses.”
“QE has been investigating AMP’s precipitous share price fall even before the most recent revelations of misconduct, and having Burford, the world’s top litigation finance company, in place as our partner means we’re ready to move quickly on behalf of shareholders,” Mr Scattini said.
Burford managing director Craig Arnott said: “The conduct admitted at the Royal Commission is starkly at odds with AMP’s responsibilities and shareholders’ legitimate expectations, requiring redress so that AMP’s shareholders can recover the value that has been lost. Burford is glad to join forces with Quinn’s first-rate team so we can help deliver that result for shareholders, which we hope will be as swift as possible.”
Follow live as the royal commission financial advice hearings continue today: https://www.ifa.com.au/strategy/25404-royal-commission-financial-advice-hearings-live-blog
A lot of ”class action” lawyers maintain this facade that they are just there for the little guy, the mums and dads etc. They are only about themselves and as mentioned here, and is well known, they scoop 30% + off the top of any settlement and the litigants then share the left-overs, usually after having to spend years in court. The 2011 Qld flood case is STILL in the courts – and who is benefiting from this? Not the flood victims.
Here is another question that needs an answer. Who did some of the flood victims sell their flood affected properties to? Properties which have now tripled in value.
After the Banking enquiry finishes up maybe we should look at this group of the legal profession. Maybe they will need to be represented at another Royal Commission. Plenty of precedent here of course. Maurice Blackburn sued Slater and Gordon, and Quinn Emanuel sued Shine Lawyers. Sharks fighting over the bait.
Law firms around the country are meeting regularly thinking up ways to feast on the financial planners out there.
Just wait till they figure out exactly how easy it’s going to be to prove in court the best interest duty wasn’t applied. How easy it will be to show your files and fact finding were not compliant. How easy it will be to prove reducing debt was the best option vs your strategy that lined your pockets.
The biggest feast for these lawyers will be FEE FOR SERVICE. They will dine on this for years and years once they figure out most of your clients did not need nor warrant a yearly fee for simple straight forward planning that should of just been charged an hourly rate for a 2 or 3 hour update meeting once every few years and at best a portfolio rebalance every few years.
Fee for service will be the stinking whale carcass in an ocean of sharks.
You better have the proof and be able to justify you fees planners. The public are informed and the lawyers know the rules. They just need to understand how simple planning is for most and how unnecessary your fee for service is for most mums and dads.
There are many things that people don’t NEED, but they are happy enough to pay for anyway. For instance, you don’t NEED a packet of Doritos because you already have two really big chips on your shoulders, which is quite clear as all you ever seem to do is come on here and rant about fee for service. Who made you the arbiter of what people should and should not spend their money on, and whether or not it is valuable? Time to change the narrative Steve, it is getting tiresome
Steve, let me guess you are an Accountant and think its alright to provide financial advice in an update/review meeting without an SOA? haha.
A load of crock Steve.
Regularly have many clients say they WANT us to look after their affairs, because they prefer to go out there and live life. They DON’T WANT to stay awake at night wondering what important decisions they have to make. They don’t mind paying FEE FOR SERVICE because we are on-call, whenever a change happens in their life or they have a concern or question on what to do, we are available.
They could choose to NOT pay the FEE FOR SERVICE. But then they’d have to make their own decisions wouldn’t they? Federal Government Budget changes annually, Investment Markets up and down, how will I pay for my home renovation, changes to one’s own health (how will my wife manage when I am gone?) etc etc.
NEEDs vs WANTS Steve.
When the cr*p hits the fan or simply changes happen, we’re here for our clients, they’re not on their own.
If they don’t want our service, that’s fine, don’t pay for it.
Lawyers are scabs
Not one accountant who recommended clients to Storm Advisers for huge commissions in the back door, nor any Storm advisers have suffered any penalties whatsoever.
You check the ASIC website for an update on the Storm case Reg.
This group can’t be serious. The Royal Commission is a political witch hunt where historical incidents which have already been settled, have been raised. As Sam Dastiari and Maurice Blackburn Lawyers have discovered, share go up and they go down and any adverse press will generate volatility. People forget that AMP save the Westpac Bank in the 80’s and AMP have served Australian and New Zealand communities for over 150 years. I am not a great advocate of AMP Senior manage over the years as they have made some poor decisions but their financial planners work hard for their clients. There is no reason for a class action. How stupid can this organisation be?
Haha thanks for the laugh. Work hard at ripping off their clients*
Yes, I nearly coughed up my lunch it’s so funny. You mean work hard at ripping off the “register”. You and I have clients and customers, AMP have “registers” and things called BOLR.
Secondly to correct the first commentator & paraphrase the weekends Fin Review…”AMP have product salespeople called Financial Planners”, they said. “These product salespeople get paid to shift more AMP products” it went on to say. It wasn’t a good read if you worked for AMP. So to be more correct Anonymous it’s “their product salespeople work hard for their registers” bless their soles.
Didn’t take long for them to crawl out their holes,now there’s an industry that should be investigated.
The irony of AMP doing a p1SS poor job – AMP shafted mums and dads to prioritise the interest of their shareholders (who may also be mum and dads). Now these mums and dads shareholders are joining a class action to for the loss in share price. #itisallcircular #mums&dadsstrikeback
Good luck proving that and not having issues around past dividend payments being the proceeds of crime.
Objective and verifiable proof is abundant
The first of many such actions to come and this is before the full disclosure of criminal activity regarding non disclosure or knowingly “” hiding “” rogue advisers to protect themselves or their bonus–not just AMP. ASIC- corp laws – which ever- get on with the job so that this industry can be cleaned once and for all.
Ambulance chasing Solicitors looking for an easy pay-day.
I don’t think taking on AMP would be easy, but the basis is fairly simple; a shareholder should be able to expect without question or diligence the executive team will not put the entity at risk by consciously breaking the law inviting fiscal liability whilst still rewarding themselves and other members of the executive with bonuses.
“Ambulance chasing” lawyers? There should be more of them. Such lawyers are private businesses offering to enforce voluntary, peaceful contracts between two people or entities. When “insurance” is added to the arrangement, it not only ensures contracts can be entered into in the first place, but in the event of a dispute, the aggrieved party is paid in full and as soon as possible. Contrast this to the government system, where it takes years and years to get through the government monopolised “justice” system, where victims usually don’t get much “justice” at all; usually not much more than the satisfaction of seeing the criminal placed behind bars. In the case of Storm Financial, there remain 3,000 persons who aren’t just out of pocket, but are in fact destitute. And not only have the Cassimatis’s not gone to jail, but the penalty for their conduct has been a paltry $70,000 fine each. Private enterprise (so-called “ambulance chasing” lawyers and insurance) is far more effective at peacefully resolving disputes that arise in everyday life than the government alternative.
Sure, so if AMP Shareholders win a class action who pays? AMP pays (and maybe some from PI) that’s who. So is that good or bad for the value of the AMP business and its shares do you think? Might as well just sue yourself champion!
Such good Samaritans! Happy enough to get involved in insurance claims that would have been paid regardless of the interference – then take 30%+ of the benefit. Yeah….nice. Lawyers are ambulance chasers 100%.
CBA product failed. People were sold out of their CBA margin loans, in CBA managed funds at the bottom of the market. It appears no one at CBA understands or wishes to understand the economic cycle.