As an actual lawyer, it's a bit painful to read a lot of the...

As an actual lawyer, it's a bit painful to read a lot of the fear and panic in this thread over what is essentially a non-event.

1. "The first steps have been taken in a potential class action against Tyro, with law firm Bannister Law starting legal correspondence with [Tyro]"

You guys know 'starting legal correspondence' is not a thing, right? Anyone can send someone a letter threatening legal action, and given Bannister Law had already publicly threatened a class action, the fact they write it in a letter isn't really anything particularly noteworthy. It's fairly poor journalism to publish this as if it's news. My suspicion is that Bannister leaked it to the press to get more media attention because they need a larger book-build (ie more customers) to make any action remotely viable for them financially, and the media played right into it because they didn't have anything better to write. Sure, write an article when they file an originating process or statement of claim, but until that happens, this is a non-story.

2. "Bannister Law" - as others have pointed out here, this is not a very reputable law firm, and they barely even have the capability to run a proper class action. It is literally five people with a barely functioning website... No interest from Maurice Blackburn, Slater's, Squire Patton Boggs, even Shine Lawyers! It is genuinely so odd to see the share price affected by completely non-specific threats from a firm that isn't even a real player in the class actions landscape. If this were a thing, at least one of those firms would have some vague interest. It's not uncommon these days for there to be 3-4 cases on foot at one time, with the major firms and major funders all wanting a piece of the action.

3. I am yet to hear anyone articulate with precision what on earth the class action would be. Bannister refer to the implied skill & care warranties provision in the ASIC Act that have never been used for something like this. AlphaX keeps commenting about how contractual limitations can't exclude all claims (which is true in limited circumstances - eg you can't put a provision in your contract saying "I agree that I will not sue you for misleading or deceptive conduct" and use that to block a valid claim for misleading or deceptive conduct - but the scope of the relationship as defined in the contract IS relevant to eg claims in negligence), and is still yet to articulate what the actual claim would be (and there's certainly no misleading or deceptive conduct claim). Bannister Law also threaten negligence, but an outage doesn't get you negligence without more. The fact that they aren't saying anything more specific indicates they don't have any evidence of particular conduct falling well short of the standard to be expected. The good news in this announcement is they don't say anything about any shareholder claim (ie they don't mention continuous disclosure), so they seem to have at least recognised that's a non-starter.

It's an annoying side-show, and it would be frustrating if Bannister Law issued a proceeding or made an application for preliminary discovery (in order to try to find a case with the specificity they would need to avoid it instantly being struck out), because that costs time and money to respond to, but honestly, the idea that this is clearly now becoming a significant drag on the SP is a joke.

I've tripled my holding in the last month, and if this goes down much further I'm going to go to town on it, because this is nuts, and it's very rare that I actually get a situation where because of my day job, I can clearly see through the noise and identify completely unfounded fear on the basis of an absolute non-issue.