ANZ coughs up $99m to settle OnePath Custodians, OnePath Lifecare super claims and Esanda car loans suit
Under-siege big four bank ANZ will fork out $99 million to settle two separate class actions launched against it in 2020.
By far the largest payout of $85m will end the Esanda suit that relates to the use of flex commissions in dealer-arranged Esanda car loans approved between January 1, 2011 and March 31, 2016.
The bank completed the sale of the Esanda Dealer Finance portfolio in 2016.
Sign up to The Nightly's newsletters.
Get the first look at the digital newspaper, curated daily stories and breaking headlines delivered to your inbox.
By continuing you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy.ANZ will also pay $14m towards a superannuation class action brought by Slater and Gordon related to the investment of funds with ANZ when it owned OnePath Custodians and OnePath Life.
The action was filed on behalf of members of the former OnePath Master Fund and Retirement Portfolio Service.
It relates to historical issues regarding interest rates paid on members’ investments in certain cash investment options in the period before January 2020 and the payment of grandfathered commissions to financial advisers in the period before April 2019.
OnePath Custodians and Zurich Australia will contribute to the total settlement of $50m, with OnePath Custodians coughing up the lion’s share of $22m.
ANZ said the settlement amounts were covered by existing provisions held at September 30, 2024 and were made without admission of liability. Both remain subject to court approval.
The agreements come as chief executive Shayne Elliott faces pressure to clean up the bank’s tarnished reputation in the wake of a trio of scandals that have emerged from within its bond trading division this year.
On Wednesday, a Federal Court defeat opened the door to a potential class action against it over a controversial $2.5 billion equity raising led by Mr Elliott nearly 10 years ago.
The court rejected an appeal by ANZ against a decision last year that found the bank breached its continuous disclosure obligations in 2015 by not revealing that $754m of shares were placed with underwriters because of a weak take-up by institutional investors.
Days before the ruling, Mr Elliott said an alcohol ban would be difficult to implement.
He said the lender “has to be realistic” about alcohol policy.
“These are pretty serious allegations and we’re working them through as a board,” he said while noting the “buck stops with me” on the trading unit’s missteps.
