Here is a much better article on AMP class action and why it...

Here is a much better article on AMP class action and why it went to MB/Slaters team-up as opposed to Shine or the other competing law firms:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6984c97a-499d-43c3-854c-94a7a90daae9

Note that in this instance Shine was funded and not using the no-win-no-fee model it uses in its personal injury business.

“While her Honour was careful to warn against a precedent that a 'no win, no fee' proposal would always provide the best return for investors, her decision does suggest that funders may be overlooked in circumstances where the proposed action is likely to be lucrative and attractive to a number of law firms. The judgment also noted the disparity in the fee proposals put forward by the funders in this case compared with what is traditionally charged in class actions (the fees in this case being much higher). In seeking to explain this disparity, the expert retained by the Plaintiff postulated that funders may be caught up in a 'race to the bottom', "whereby they gain control of cases by accepting smaller commissions than their competitors, then earn profits and minimise risks by settling cheaply and quickly."[7]

In circumstances where we have seen at least 78 (almost all funded) shareholder class actions filed in the Federal Court since 2002, the AMP decision is unlikely to make a dent in shareholder class action popularity in Australia. That said, the decision may give funders reason to pause before investing in proposed class actions where one (or several) has already been filed. The decision may also result in a rise in 'no win no fee' backed class actions, which bypass funders completely.”