ASX Shareholder Claims


Victorian Registry, Federal Court of Australia (VID 114/2014).

Date of Filing

25 February 2014.

Presiding Judge

Justice Middleton.

Solicitors for Applicant

ACA Lawyers.

Solicitors for Respondent

Herbert Smith Freehills.



Status of Claim

Hearing set down from 6 June 2016 to 10 August 2016 vacated. On 7 June the claim conditionally settled with Settlement Approval on 18 July 2016.

Class Members

All former Zinifex shareholders who:

  1. acquired shares in OZ Minerals on 1 July 2008 as a result of the merger between Oxiana Limited (New OZ Minerals) and Zinifex; and
  2. had not settled their claims with OZ Minerals.
The Action

The Applicant alleged that OZ Minerals (formerly Oxiana Limited) engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, and breached its continuous disclosure obligation to keep the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) informed of all information that a reasonable person would expect, if it were generally available, to have a material effect on the price or value of OZ Minerals’ shares.

The relevant information was its current liability position and its refinancing risks in early 2008 which it was alleged a material impact on the price or value of the shares in Oxiana Limited (and later OZ Minerals) on the ASX.

OZ Minerals denied the allegations and defended the class action. As a further defence by OZ Minerals and in a series of related proceedings involving claims and cross claims, OZ Minerals alleges that if is it liable to group members (which it denies), then so too, in whole or part, are the following persons or entities:

  1. Grant Samuel & Associates Pty Limited;
  2. Zinifex;
  3. Former directors and officers of Zinifex;
  4. Former directors and officers of OZ Minerals (formerly Oxiana Limited);
  5. Clayton Utz;
  6. Allens;
  7. KPMG; and
  8. KPMG TS Pty Limited

(collectively, the alleged concurrent wrongdoers).

The Applicant’s claims in this proceeding were as against OZ Minerals and he did not make claims against the alleged concurrent wrongdoers or seek any relief against them.

The significance to group members of OZ Minerals’ allegations is that the alleged concurrent wrongdoers were also liable to the Applicant and group members. If OZ Minerals was found liable for the Applicant and group members’ loss, OZ Minerals was alleging it was only liable for a proportion of that loss.


Privilege/Discovery (28 October 2015).