ANZ: No payments or commitments made to Elliott

ANZ: No payments or commitments made to Elliott

ANZ: No Payments or Commitments Made to Former CEO in Bonus Dispute

Former ANZ CEO Shayne Elliott has initiated legal proceedings against the bank in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, seeking redress after his post-retirement bonus was reduced by $13.5 million. ANZ has stated it will "vigorously defend" the case, asserting that no payments or commitments were improperly made to Elliott and that the adjustment aligns with corporate accountability measures.

The bonus reduction, applied to the 2024-25 financial year, was part of ANZ's broader reassessment of executive remuneration following regulatory scrutiny. The bank cited its obligation under the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority's Prudential Standard CPS 511, which mandates that remuneration incentivize prudent risk management and tie pay to performance outcomes. According to ANZ, the decision to adjust Elliott's long-term variable remuneration to zero for 2025 and 2026 was "considered and deliberate."

Elliott, who led ANZ from 2016 to 2025, argued in his statement that the bank breached his contract and that he had "no alternative" but to pursue legal action. However, ANZ countered that the adjustments were justified given Elliott's accountability for "non-financial risk matters" during his tenure, including scandals that led to a $240 million fine from ASIC in September 2025. The bank noted that similar pay adjustments affected other executives, with total reductions across the group amounting to $32 million.

Elliott has sought a court declaration of contract breach and a swift hearing, while ANZ remains resolute in its position. Chairman Paul O'Sullivan reiterated the board's confidence, stating the decision reflected its duty to prioritize risk management and stakeholder trust.

The case highlights tensions between executive compensation practices and corporate governance expectations, particularly in the banking sector. With no interim payments or commitments alleged by ANZ, the outcome will likely hinge on interpretations of contractual terms and regulatory compliance. Updates on the litigation and its financial implications will emerge as proceedings advance.