AMP shareholder class action advertised on 2GB Radio, page-18

I doubt that any of these class actions will go to a hearing. AMP will be happy to reach a settlement (without admission and with no disclosure as to amounts) to avoid further adverse publicity. The legal representatives of the shareholders will also have strong imperatives to settle.Class actions are notoriously complicated, and resource intensive--expensive and draining-- and carry quite high risk of failure or at least failure to realize expectations.By way of one example: it is not enough to prove a failure of duty and a loss of share value. Leaving aside the issue of quantifying the loss in each case, you have to prove causation i.e. that the breach of duty caused the loss. On most posts on this site,that seems to be an assumption treated as a fact. But is it? AMP clearly has admitted breaches of duty, but to whom, shareholders or customers.The shareholders did well out of the income generated by the breach of duty to customers before it all came out. More importantly, AMP was not alone in admitting egregious conduct to the R.C. Arguably the CBA's alleged conduct was worse in turning a blind eye to money laundering. The SP of the other banks has not been hammered as mercilessly. What is the distinguishing feature? It may be, in all likelihood is, the threat and now the fact of class actions by shareholders.Now if the true cause of the fall was wholly or in part,the actions of the shareholders in looking to exploit the  breach of duty in a blaze of publicity and it was that fact, and not the breach per se, that brought about the loss of share value, how does that give an entitlement to damages? Are people to be compensated by someone else for their own actions? For my own part as a shareholder, the class action advocates will get no thanks from me if they destroy the company and the value of my shares.

Just thoughts, not to be taken as advice legal or otherwise