City of Swan v McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc

The City of Swan and others sought approval from the Federal Court of Australia for a settlement with McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. The dispute arose from allegations of breaches of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) by McGraw-Hill. The City of Swan and other local government entities claimed damages for misleading or deceptive conduct by McGraw-Hill in relation to the sale of financial products. The court was tasked with determining whether the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable and in the interests of the group members as a whole, pursuant to section 33V of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). This required considering the complexity and duration of the litigation, the stage of the proceedings, the risks and prospects of success, the risks of an appeal, and the reasonableness of the settlement considering the potential outcomes and associated risks. The court also had to assess whether there were any objections from group members and whether they had been properly informed about the settlement's critical elements.

The court examined the settlement's fairness and reasonableness by considering the detailed evidence supporting the proposed reimbursement payments to representative applicants, the City of Swan and Baron-Hay Investments. The payments were deemed reasonable and within the typical range for such reimbursements in representative proceedings. The absence of any objections from group members, coupled with their informed consent, lessened the court's protective role. The settlement's terms were considered fair and reasonable, given the litigation's risks and prospects, as well as the settlement's alignment with the best-case recovery scenario.

The court approved the proposed settlement, dismissing the proceeding with no order as to costs. It authorised the applicants to enter into the Settlement Deed on behalf of the group members and appointed Squire Patton Boggs as the administrator of the Settlement Distribution Scheme. The court also ordered that certain documents and exhibits be treated as confidential to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice. Finally, the court vacated all previous costs orders and mandated that the proceedings be dismissed upon the settlement's effective date, with the parties retaining liberty to apply for further orders as needed.