Maurice Blackburn secures $72.5 m settlement in Crown Resorts class action

_{< Go back to Class Actions Landscape Australia}

This was a judgment approving the settlement of a shareholder class action against Crown Resorts Ltd (Crown), which was brought on behalf of all persons who:

1. acquired shares in Crown between 11 December 2014 and 18 October 2020 (inclusive); and/or
2. held an interest in shares in Crown throughout that period.

Put broadly, the class action alleged that, in relation to the appropriateness of its systems for ensuring compliance with certain regulatory requirements (particularly those relating to anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing), Crown:

1. engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct;
2. breached its continuous disclosure obligations; and
3. conducted its affairs contrary to the interests of its members as a whole.

The class action settled in May 2025 for $72.5 million, which will be paid in three instalments. Although the proceeding was commenced in December 2020, it settled “at a relatively early stage” (that is, prior to the filing of lay and expert evidence).

In the judgment, Nichols J approved:

1. the proposed settlement, as fair and reasonable and in the interests of group members;
2. the proposed Settlement Distribution Scheme (SDS) (albeit with some minor variations to, inter alia, ensure the settlement sum is distributed to group members as soon as is practicable); and
3. legal costs,  pursuant to a group costs order (GCO) that had been made at an early stage of the proceeding.

The proposed settlement and SDS

Nichols J, having considered the confidential opinion of counsel and the evidence of a solicitor of Maurice Blackburn (MB), had “no doubt” that the proposed settlement of $72.5 million was fair and reasonable and in the interest of group members.

In respect of the payment of the settlement sum by instalments, her Honour was satisfied that, having regard to Crown’s current financial position, “the plaintiff’s advisers negotiated for, and sought to obtain, payment terms that were as short as possible to ensure that substantial amounts were paid in the earliest payment tranches.”

Regarding the SDS, Nichols J appointed MB as the scheme administrator, given its experience “in administering settlements of this kind,” and found that it was appropriate for the steps to be taken by the administrator to be final and not subject to appeal (because the administrator’s assessments would “involve the application of a mathematical formula and not an evaluation or qualitative assessment”).

GCO

In December 2022, Stynes J had made a GCO in the proceeding with a ‘tiered’ or ‘ratcheted’ GCO rate. The relevant GCO rate, in respect of the settlement sum that was obtained, was 27.5%. At settlement, Nichols J found that, “taking into account the result that has transpired” in the proceeding, there was no justification for varying the GCO rate. In her Honour’s view, the GCO rate of 27.5%:

• resulted in a payment to MB that was neither unreasonable nor disproportionate;
• appropriately reflected the risks undertaken by MB in conducting the case;
• could not, on any reasonable view, be characterised as a ‘windfall’ for MB; and
• the reasons that supported the making of the initial GCO rate remained cogent in respect of the outcome that was achieved.

Lieberman v Crown Resorts Ltd [2025] VSC 596

Supreme Court of Victoria | Nichols J | 19 September 2025
Plaintiff’s Solicitors: Maurice Blackburn
Defendant’s Solicitors: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer

Crown Resorts Shareholder Group Proceeding (Class Action) | The Supreme Court of Victoria

_{< Go back to Class Actions Landscape Australia}