In the following guest post, Jeff Lubitz, Managing Director, ISS Securities Class Action Services, and Jarett Sena, Director of Litigation Analysis, ISS Securities Class Action Services, review an important recent Australian High Court decision in which the court paved the way for foreign shareholders to join the collective investor action pending in Australia against BHP Billiton Limited. I would like to thank Jeff and Jarett for allowing me to publish their article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the authors’ article.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Australian High Court OKs Foreign Shareholders In BHP Collective Investor Action
In a milestone in the development of collective investor actions in Germany, a plaintiff in a proceeding against Hypo Real Estate Holding and arising out of the global financial crisis had reached an agreement to settle the action for €190 million. The case against Hypo Real Estate Holding was brought under the German Capital Markets Model Case Act, known as KapMuG. As discussed below, this settlement has very important implications for the development of collective investor actions in Germany, and, indeed, worldwide. A copy of the plaintiff law firm’s June 1, 2022 press release describing the settlement can be found 
A court in the Netherlands has ruled that a collective investor action against Petrobras and related entities pending in the court can go forward, notwithstanding the arbitration clause in Petrobras’s articles of association. The defendants had sought to argue that because of the arbitration clause the foundation that was pursuing the Dutch action on behalf of investors had no standing to pursue the claims. The Dutch court’s May 26, 2021 ruling rejecting the defendants’ argument will now permit the action to go forward. A copy of Petrobras’s May 27, 2021 press release about the court’s ruling can be found 
In a development with significant implications both for Petrobras investor claims and for the global pursuit of investor claims generally, a Dutch court has accepted jurisdiction for a securities fraud action filed in the Netherlands against Petrobras, and also ruled that the arbitration clause in Petrobras’s bylaws do not preclude the Dutch proceeding. As discussed below, the court’s rulings could have important global ramifications for the viability of Dutch procedures for investors seeking collective redress, even (as is the case in the Petrobras action) with respect to companies based outside of the Netherlands.
A group of 124 institutional investors have joined a claim filed in London’s high court on October 31, 2016 against Tesco seeking damages for the company’s alleged financial misrepresentations. The claim, which seeks over £100 million in alleged damages, was filed on the investors’ behalf by the Stewarts law firm, and is supported by Bentham Europe Limited, an affiliate of Australian group IMF Bentham, a funding litigation firm whose shares are publicly traded on the ASX.
As I noted in my 
In conjunction with my