As someone who works in a related space, I'd be very keen to read the statement of claim.
The AFR reported that MinRes "engaged in misleading conduct and failed to disclose material information in relation to its business practices, standards of corporate governance, and the scope and nature of transactions with related parties, including Mr Ellison"
I suspect there will be difficulty on causation, if the primary cause of action pleaded is in relation to related party transactions. I think it will be difficult to prove that but for the related transactions / failure to disclose, the share price would not have had the same/ similar result. Even if causation is made out, then there will be difficulty in quantifying the loss that arose from the specifically alleged issues, as opposed to anything else.
Arguably, if the AFR didn't incessantly report on their investigations into MinRes, the share price may not have actually dropped as much as it did. What about the shorters applying pressure on the share price, which may be connected to the flow of information via the AFR
I'm not advocating for any perspective, just offering some musings about the claim.
I anticipate that like many class actions that are marketed akin to "David v Goliath" scenarios, it is the litigation funders and no-win no fee type lawyers who stand to gain the most out of these kinds of class actions.
MIN Price at posting:
$23.38 Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)