Ann: Class Action Resolution, page-266

" I am no legal expert, can someone tell me when would the court look at the evidence and determine if a case against the company is worthy or not? "

Hi Baz,

they won't. That's the point - it's a completely different business model to feed the big litigation funders & the law firms who solicit them business get to 'clip the ticket'. In my experience, it has nothing to do with a desire to have a Court analyse and determine the merits of the allegations/ claims.

Side C, Directors & Officers liaiblity insurance is a growing business for the vultures to tuck into & the Courts don't help.

I'm not sure if the sharks here were overseas funders, or the litigation funding risk was underwritten there. Could have been out of the US, Singapore or London, all of which can and do operate satellite offices in Oz. But it really begs the question whether plaintiff class action lawyers should be allowed to operate on a contingency fee basis.

The critical points here IMO (if its sanctioned by the Fed Crt) are:

- the insurers accepted responsiblity to payout i.e. there was no exculpatory actions or omissions by the BOD in and around the time of the allegations e.g.. no fraud, no unauthorised action & absolutely nothing of any criminal or quasi-criminal kind;

- the company will never have any other potential liabilities to these shareholders arising out of the alleged matters. No more bites at the cherry;

- there is ZERO cash-flow impact on MSB from the allegations & that's for the foreseeable future. Any change of procedures by the company, on any review would only help to de-risk the company in future insurance negotiations, as I see it. Even if there'd been a flow-on premium hike notified for next year, it'd be like reducing your alleged tax bill to close to zero, and then getting to defer that rump of a bill for the future. Sounds like something I'd do in business. Y'know, to make money.

All good, as I see it. Not advice, just common sense.

Cheers