ANZ Calls $300m NZ Class Action Offer a “Stunt” – But the Stakes Are High for Lawyers and Lawmakers
ANZ has publicly torched a proposed $300 million-plus settlement offer made in the middle of its legal scrap with plaintiffs over alleged disclosure breaches under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA), calling the move a “cynical stunt” aimed at pressuring lawmakers.
The class action, which also involves the ASB, could affect more than 150,000 borrowers and potentially lead to refunds totalling over $600 million.
But with law reform on the table that could wipe out the claims entirely, the plaintiffs are playing their cards fast.
What’s the deal with the deal?
The proposed settlement, put to both banks in recent days, comes just as the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee is hearing submissions on proposed CCCFA amendments. Those changes would give courts discretion not to award refunds for disclosure breaches—even if proven.
ANZ’s response was swift and scathing. A spokesperson for the bank dismissed the offer as a “deliberate and cynical attempt to influence the Select Committee and the law reform process.”
ASB has not formally responded, but pressure is mounting on both banks. The plaintiffs’ legal team, led by Scott Russell and funded by CASL (Australia) and LPF (NZ), argue the proposal is a serious offer—meant to give affected borrowers a chance to recover what they’re owed, before any backdated legislative changes shut the door.
What the plaintiffs want
The class action centres on alleged failures by ANZ and ASB to properly disclose key information to borrowers between 2015 and 2019, in breach of sections 22, 48, and 99 of the CCCFA. The plaintiffs say those breaches mean borrowers are entitled to a refund of interest and fees paid over that period.
The banks argue the breaches were minor and technical. But the cost could be huge. ANZ alone estimates it faces up to $306 million in exposure.
The banks claim that the loopholes if not fixed might result in a $13 billion threat to the financial system, which the Reserve Bank has indicated as a broader, systemic impact upon the industry.
One of the class action counsel Davey Salmon KC told the select committee the industry’s claims were not real.
“There is not a menace here.”
The law change that changes everything
The timing of the offer is no accident.
If the proposed CCCFA amendments pass, courts will no longer have to automatically order refunds, even if a disclosure breach is proven. The plaintiffs say that would amount to retroactively letting the banks off the hook.
And that’s where this story stops being just a big-money class action and starts becoming a legal and political powder keg.
If lawmakers go ahead with the changes, it could cut off the plaintiffs at the knees. If they don’t, the case could set a precedent for bank liability and disclosure compliance for years to come.
Why lawyers are watching closely
For lawyers advising banks or borrowers, this case isn’t just noise. It cuts straight into:
- Disclosure obligations – The case raises real questions about what is “sufficient” under CCCFA sections 22 and 99.
- Litigation funding – With Australian and Kiwi funders joining forces, it’s a real-time case study in how class actions are getting financed in NZ.
- Retroactive lawmaking – If Parliament can rewrite financial law mid-case, what else could be up for grabs?
The Select Committee will continue to hear submissions through July, and the court process rolls on in parallel. No trial date is yet set, but the banks’ next moves—and the lawmakers’ decisions—will shape the legal and financial fallout.
