During the two-day hearing before the 6 September judgment in the AMP buyer of last resort (BOLR) class action, 92 objections were filed, with 81 participants arguing that the settlement amount woefully fell short of covering their significant financial losses.
Court documents have revealed that many advisers took to the stand, sharing their frustrations over a settlement they felt didn’t even begin to capture the full extent of their individual shortfalls.
For some, losses are estimated at $1.6 million, leading them to deem any offer below $100,000 as seriously inadequate.
“Personally, my BOLR shortfall is approximately $1.6 million (excluding GST) [and] I do not believe the prospect of settling for less than $100,000 is a fair or reasonable result,” one adviser said.
According to the documents, this sentiment of injustice echoed throughout the courtroom, revealing a collective belief that the proposed figure failed to recognise the severe impact of the BOLR changes on advisers’ lives.
“In the absence of critical information such as the total BOLR payments outstanding to all class-action participants, I am unable to verify the amount of settlement that I am likely to receive. However, I am very aware the proposed settlement amount of $100 million falls significantly short of this total – possibly by a factor of at least four or five times,” another adviser said.
Adding to the anxiety, the lack of transparency regarding individual payouts raised further concerns. Namely, many advisers felt left in the dark, uncertain about how much they would actually receive after accounting for legal costs and other expenses.
This ambiguity led several to declare they would rather risk pursuing further legal action than accept what they consider an unworthy settlement.
One said: “For me to accept any offer, I need to know the facts. Facts such as: what will I be getting, what is expected of me after I receive the benefit, is the benefit worthwhile given the circumstances, is the offer fair for all my impacted colleagues who continue within the profession and is there room for negotiation.”
The court documents also revealed that 42 objections highlighted the mental distress advisers faced, with many sharing personal stories of anxiety in court. They expressed how the BOLR changes deeply affected their financial security and mental health, arguing that the settlement failed to reflect their suffering.
But while Justice Shaun McElwaine, who presided over the case, acknowledged the intensity of the objections, he ultimately deemed the settlement “fair and reasonable” based on an objective assessment.
“Each person who addressed the court spoke passionately and with conviction. Many were quite distressed in explaining their deeply personal reasons for opposing the settlement. Each courageously explained how their personal and professional lives have been shattered by the decision to alter the BOLR policy. Many remain in significant debt. Most have experienced deep personal trauma and anxiety. Some have suffered with suicidal ideation,” Justice McElwaine said.
“These are broken individuals who cannot accept that payment of $100 million is adequate to compensate for their individual and collective suffering.
“The principal reason why I have not acceded to their individual and collective position, is that I have objectively assessed all the material which I am satisfied provides a proper basis to exercise the statutory discretion to approve.”
If you have been affected by the issues in this story, please contact Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636 or Lifeline on 13 11 14.
So, based on 92 objections being filed and Justice Shaun McElwaine acknowledging the shattering impact on both business and personal lives this process has had on so many people at the hands of a corporate giant whose soul intention was to bully and overwhelm loyal AMP Advisers with high level corporate intimidation, coercion and manipulation, he saw it appropriate to deem the settlement ” fair and reasonable”.
It is against principle of right and wrong and although the law can quite obviously be a highly complex process to understand, when it comes to a large corporate organisation driven by the direction of a callous CEO who is no longer in that position that was determined to waste people and their livelihood in the name of greed, it is unacceptable this determination was arrived at based on the principle of right and wrong.
This is incredibly disappointing.