Scott Russell: Lawyer involved in class action lawsuit against major banks on ASB paying $135.6 million to settle suit

ASB has agreed to pay $135.6 million to settle a class action after it was accused of breaching its disclosure obligations under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act.

The case against ASB alleged failures to provide compliant written disclosure of loan variations to a significant number of customers.

ANZ is still hanging on as the remaining defendant of the class action.

Scott Russell, the lawyer representing bank customers in the class action, says the lawsuit against ANZ hasn't been dropped.

"We remain fully committed to our claim against ANZ...ANZ customers deserve a positive outcome similar to that."

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
ASB has agreed to pay more than one hundred and
thirty five million dollars to settle a class action lawsuit. Now,
this is the legal action representing about one hundred and
seventy thousand kiwis which has been taken against ASB and
A and Z who've been accused of breaching responsible lending rules.
Scott Russell is the lawyer representing bank customers in the
class action and is with us. Hey, Scott, why do

(00:22):
you think ASB has agreed to settle?

Speaker 2 (00:25):
Oh? Look, it's a commercial resolution that includes over four
years of litigation and really provides certainty for both parties.

Speaker 1 (00:34):
How many customers of ASB have you got here?

Speaker 2 (00:39):
Well, the action is an opt out action, which is,
as you probably know, a type of lawsuit where all
individuals who meet the criteria automatically included as part of
the class. So it's actually going to be a matter
for courts to determine and approve in the coming weeks
what the number is.

Speaker 1 (00:54):
Okay, So you can't look at one thirty five mill
and then say, divided by x number customers, they will
get so much. We don't know any of that.

Speaker 2 (01:01):
I can't that at that stage. This stage know that
it'll be determined by the court in the coming weeks.

Speaker 1 (01:05):
Why is A and Z not doing the same.

Speaker 2 (01:08):
Well, that's a good question and that's something we'll certainly
be reaching out and asking A and Z. But we
remain fully committed to our claim against A and Z,
continue to fight that. But A Z customers deserve a
positive outcome here similar to that which has been achieved
for ASB Scott.

Speaker 1 (01:25):
The Government cannot surely continue with its law change, can
it now that ASB has settled.

Speaker 2 (01:32):
Well. The Senate Committee is due to report back to
Parliament on the twentieth of October, and am Z is
now the only known lender facing active litigation that would
benefit from this proposed respective law change. So it would
be very unclear why the government would intervene, reach back
and change the law but retect one large Australian owned bank.

Speaker 1 (01:54):
I mean, particularly when you think that ASB has said, yep,
we have to sett all this. To settle this, A
and Z is there. So if the bank, sorry, if
the government was to change the law, they would be
looking at and still still making the argument that A
and Z alone has to be protected. That's essentially the
nut of it isn't it.

Speaker 2 (02:13):
Yeah, that's right. I mean the sentiment is still subject
to ort approval and it's made with no missions of
liability on the part of ASB. But yeah, subject to that.
You're correct, all.

Speaker 1 (02:24):
Right, Scott, Thanks very much. Scott Russell, lawyer representing bank
customers in the class action. None of it or nub
of it your choice now. ASB says it has made
no admission of liability or wrongdoing. Its chief executive says
the settlement provides certainty for the bank and its customers.
A and Z has sent us a statement they say
asb's decision to settle as a commercial decision for them.
A and Z New Zealand will continue to defend its case.

(02:46):
Our position hasn't changed. The potential consequences under the current
law are disproportionate, not aligned with any actual harm cause
and the risk posed by the wording of the current
legislation has been widely discussed from a political perspective. Fascinated
and how Scott Simpson is going to defend his position
in changing the law retrospectively, which is quite a wild

(03:07):
thing to do. It didn't get done very often. How
he can persist in doing that? For one Australian Bank
six eleven. For more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive, Listen
live to news talks. It'd be from four pm weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio